IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10493 of 2011 Anwari Bano @ Ladli Versus Md.Taiyab & Ors ---------------------------------- 06. 22.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.2 against the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by Sub Judge-II, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2007 whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the plaintiff respondent for examining Sams Tabrez Khan as a witness by appointing Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witness who is sought to be examined is the father of the petitioner and out of fear he has left Patna and now he is residing at Ajmer Sharif. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he is willing to come to Patna and depose in the case but the respondents got the Advocate Commissioner appointed for his examination at Ajmer Sharif. According to the learned counsel the father is not so old and it is wrong to say that he is disabled person and lost one leg. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed went to Ajmer Sharif and examined the witness at Ajmer Sharif and also has submitted the report on 20.7.2009 and after perusing the report the present petitioner has filed this application on 28.7.2009 (Original Civil Revision No. 1262 of 2009). In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is wrong to say that he was examined at Ajmer Sharif and even if he has been examined no notice was given to the present petitioner and, therefore the report of the advocate Commissioner is meaningless and it is liable to be set aside. So for this dispute regarding as to whether the Advocate Commissioner has examined him and submitted the report or that the notice was not given to the petitioner is concerned while examining the correctness or otherwise or the legality or otherwise of the impugned order dated 29.5.2009 cannot be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondents the said impugned order has already taken its effect, now therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction it cannot be interfered with. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may file objection before the court below. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)