IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1188 of 2006 1. SANJAY KUMAR, S/o Late Tek Narayan Prasad and 2. Lalwati Devi, W/o Late Tek Narayan Prasad, All are residents of Mohalla – Habibpura, P.O. & P.S. – Sohsarai, Distt. – Nalanda …….. Plaintiffs – Respondents - Petitioners Versus 1. CHHATRI DEVI, W/o Dular Chand Prasad, 2. Bhukhia Devi, W/o Late Neeru Mahto, 3. Dular Chand Mahto, S/o Mangru Mahto, 4. Umesh Prasad, S/o Late Neeru Mahto, 5. Subhash Prasad, S/o Late Neeru Mahto, All are residents of Mohalla – Ashanagar, P.O. & P.S. Sohsarai, Distt. – Nalanda ….. …………………Defendants – Appellants – Opposite parties 1st Set, 6. Reeta Devi, D/o late Tek Narayan Prasad, 7. Reenu Devi, D/o late Tek Narayan Prasad, 8. Rubi Devi, D/o late Tek Narayan Prasad, 9. Mamta Devi, D/o late Tek Narayan Prasad, and 10. Madhu Kumari, D/o late Tek Narayan Prasad, All are residents of Mohalla – Habibpura, P.O. & P.S. – Sohsarai, Distt. – Nalanda ……………………Plaintiffs – Respondents – Opp. Parties 2nd Set. ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5:- Mr. Partha Sarthy and Mr. Ravi Shankar No. 1, Advocates. ---------- 7. 09.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 5. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, whereby the prayer of the defendant - appellants for appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner has been allowed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it would be manifest from the impugned order dated 2 28.04.2006 itself that the plaintiffs witness in his examination and cross examination has stated regarding the measurement of land by the Amin concerned. No step was taken by the defendants – appellants – opposite parties no. 1 to 5 raising this issue of the need of appointment of Pleader Commissioner before the trial court. Now, at the appellate stage only with regard to filling up the lacuna, the endeavour has been made by the defendants – appellants – opposite parties no. 1 to 5 for appointment of Pleader Commissioner with a view to bring additional evidence on record. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 and the interim report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner has also been annexed therewith, which goes to show that the Pleader Commissioner concerned has not been able to make a proper survey of the disputed land. This report is dated 18.09.2006. However, none of the opposite parties has stated as to what has been done by him thereafter. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that for delineation of one decimal of the suit land it was essential that the same should have been done through a 3 Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. I have heard the parties and perused the record of this case. From a plain reading of the impugned order it appears that no reason has been assigned by the concerned court for appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner at the appellate stage, rather it has been stated that since the plaintiffs did not examine the Amin concerned or produced the document concerned at the trial court stage, need arises for appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. It was open for the opposite parties 1 to 5 to raise all these questions before the court below at the time of hearing of the title suit concerned. However, admittedly such issue was not raised by them at that stage. The trial court has decreed the suit. The appellate court concerned, though has stated that report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner is needed for clarification of the issue, however, there is no discussion at all and reason given as to on which issue there is any confusion, that needs clarification. Thus I am of the view that the trial court 4 concerned has erred in appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner at the appellate stage without any discussion and assigning specific reason for doing the same. As such, the impugned order dated 28.04.2006 is set aside. In the result, this Civil Revision stands allowed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )