IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.104 of 2007 BRAJ MOHAN PRASAD & ORS Versus ASHOK SINGH @ ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 02. 14.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 22.12.2006 by which the learned Munsif, 1, Gaya, allowed the prayer of the defendants-opposite parties to hear on the report of Pleader Commissioner in the midst of the hearing of Title Suit No.119 of 1990 ( 47/06) although the report of the Pleader Commissioner was submitted at the appellate stage. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for a decree of injunction and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit a petition for injunction was filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same was dismissed by the learned trial court by order dated 09.03.1992, against which the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 1992 ( 08/1993). The said miscellaneous appeal was allowed by the learned lower appellate court on 18.12.1993 passing an order of injunction. The defendants-opposite parties challenged the said order in Civil Revision No.443 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated 23.02.1995 (annexure-1) on the basis of agreement of the parties to set aside the aforesaid order of the lower appellate court dated 18.12.1993 and to appoint a survey knowing pleader commissioner for measurement of the suit land in presence of the parties and submit a report and thereafter the learned court of appeal below was directed to give its finding. - 2 - It transpires that after the said order, the learned court of appeal below appointed a survey knowing pleader commissioner who submitted his report as per the order of this court, whereafter the learned lower appellate court disposed of Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 1992 (08/93) by order dated 10.07.2003 (annexure-2) directing both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. It was also directed by the said order that the court below should expedite the hearing of the suit without being prejudiced by the orders passed in the appeal as well as the report of the survey knowing pleader commissioner giving a liberty to the court below to appoint a fresh survey knowing pleader commissioner. Thereafter the proceeding of the title suit continued. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order considering the fact that this court had considered the matter with respect to appointment of pleader commissioner and on its basis the learned court of appeal below had appointed the commissioner and had taken its report which was never objected at the appellate stage and hence it was necessary that the said report and any objection thereto be considered in the title suit as desired by the defendants-opposite parties in their petition filed in the said suit. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below, rather it finds that it would be in consonance with the earlier order passed by this court. This court also finds that this civil revision has been filed merely to delay the disposal of the suit and also to invalidate the order passed by the lower appellate court for expediting the disposal of the suit. - 3 - In the said circumstances, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to proceed with the suit expeditiously and to decide it without any further delay and without allowing any undue adjournment to any of the parties. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)