IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.925 of 2008 SATYA NRAYAN SINGH & ORS Versus BIKRMADITYA SINGH & ORS ----------- 3 10.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 1.5.2008 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in his application dated 16.1.2008 for rejecting the report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 10.11.2005. It is not in doubt that when the Pleader Commissioner appointed by the Court below had submitted his report on 4.8.2005, an opportunity was given to the parties including the petitioner to submit any objection against such report of the Pleader Commissioner but when no such objection was received till 10.11.2005 nor any one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the Court below had confirmed the report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 4.8.2005 by an order dated 10.11.2005. The application seeking recall of the order dated 10.11.2005 on the ground that the name of 2 such Pleader Commissioner was deleted from the list of Advocate Commissioner or that the Pleader Commissioner who had submitted report on 4.8.2005 was in collusion with the decree holder, were definitely not fit to be entertained inasmuch as counsel for the petitioner admits that such order deleting the name of the Pleader Commissioner came into existence only subsequently after confirmation of the report of the Pleader Commissioner. Moreover, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the report of the Pleader Commissioner and had not chosen to file any objection on the ground of Pleader Commissioner being in collusion with the decree holder, he had still a remedy against the aforementioned order dated 10.11.2005 by moving this Court but that having not been done by the petitioner, he cannot be now allowed to get the order confirming the report of the Pleader Commissioner, recalled after a period of more than two years. Thus it becomes clear that the petitioner having successfully evaded the execution proceedings and delaying it for next two years, had filed only a frivolous application on 3 16.1.2008 which was rightly rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 1.5.2008. Thus there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly, this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)