IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.265 of 2007 1. Jitendra Kumar, son of late Ramdyal Singh 2. Nago Kuer wife of late Ramdayal Singh Both residents of village Bhakharua, P.O. and P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad. …Defendant-Petitioner versus 1. Jugeshwar Singh, son of late Badri Yadav, resident of village Bhakharua, P.O. and P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad ..Defendant-Opp. Party 1st set. 2. Sri Ram Kewal Singh, son of Fakiri Yadav 3. Sri Charitar Singh 4. Sri Gaya Singh 5. Sri Ramchandra Singh Nos. 2 to 5 sons of late Mohan Singh 6. Sri Vijay Singh 7. Sri Arunjay Singh 8. Sri Uday Singh 9. Sri Sunil Singh 10. Sri Anil Singh Nos. 6 to 10 sons of late Ramdeo Singh 11. Sri Ram Ashraya Singh 12. Sri Laloo Singh Both sons of late Gudri Singh 13. Sri Sheo Narayan Singh 14. Sri Chhedi Singh Both sons of late Ramdeo Singh 15. Sri Bandh Singh 16. Sri Janeshwar Singh Both sons of late Ramlochan Singh All residents of village Bhakharua, P.O. and P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad. ………Defendants-Opposite Parties 2nd set. 17. Sri Krishna Singh son of late Ram Ratan Singh 18. Sri Prayag Singh 19. Sri Hardeep Singh 20. Sri Jagdish Singh Nos. 18 to 20 sons of late Ram Ratan Singh 21. Mosomat Manmati Kuer, wife of late Ram Ratan Singh, All residents of village Bhakharua, P.O. and P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad. ……..Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 3rd set. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : None. --------- 2 02/ 10.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 11.01.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Aurangabad, allowed defendant no.2- opposite party no.1 to repair the wall in question on the basis of report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in Partition Suit No. 152/1999(108/2006). 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party 3rd set for partition of the suit land claiming two annas share therein. In the said suit, parties have appeared and have filed their respective pleadings, on the basis of which issues have already framed. 4. It transpires that on 04.02.2006 defendant no.2 filed an application in the trial court stating that he was in possession of the suit premises, which was in dilapidated condition and hence he be allowed to get the same repaired. The said prayer of defendant no.2-opposite party no.1 was objected by none except defendant no.1-petitioner claiming that, in fact, he was in possession of the suit premises. It further transpires that defendant no.2-opposite party no.1 earlier filed a petition for appointment of Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which defendant no.1-petitioner objected, but the learned court below appointed a Pleader Commissioner feeling that local inspection was essential for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute regarding possession of defendant no.1 and 3 defendant no.2 and, thereafter, the Pleader Commissioner made a local inspection and submitted his report with a finding that defendant no.2 was found in possession of the premises in question. It does not appear from the materials on record that the said order was ever challenged by defendant no.1. 5. Subsequently on 04.02.2006 defendant no.2 filed an application in the trial court for permitting him to repair the premises in question as it was in dilapidated condition. Although defendant no.1 objected to it but the learned court below allowed the said application and directed defendant no.2 to repair the premises in question, which was admittedly in dilapidated condition. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, the impugned order or this order shall not have any bearing on the final judgment of the learned trial court, which has to be based upon the pleadings of the parties, evidence led by them and the provisions of law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )