IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.238 of 2008 Rsm Pukar Singh son of late Bangali Singh, resident of Vill. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonapur Bharath, Pargana balia,P.S. Motihari,Distt. Begusarai……Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ramjee Sharma son of Mahesh Sharma 2. Laxman Sharma son of Mahesh Sharma 3. Bharath Sharma son of Mahesh Sharma 4. Om Prakash Sharma son of Mahesh Sharma 5. Ram Shankar Sharma son of Mahesh Sharma All residents of Vill. Bagdobh, Punarueash, Par- Gana Balia, P.S. Nayagaon, Distt. Begusarai. ….. Defendants—Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Raghwanand, Advocate. For the O.Ps.:None. 5 11.12.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 03.05.2007 by which learned Sub- Judge-V, Begusarai, rejected his application for permitting him to cross examine the special witness, namely, Sri Mahendra Narain Choudhary, Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, in T.S.No.29 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land detailed in Schedule-C of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested the case of the plaintiff and claimed their own title and possession over the suit land. 4. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit a survey knowing pleader commission was appointed by the learned court below with respect to three portions detailed in Schedules A,B and C. The said Pleader Commission after inspection submitted his 2 report dated 10.12.2000 (Annexure-2).Thereafter he was examined by the defendants as a special witness on 11.09.2002, 16.09.2002 and 25.11.2002 (Annexure-3) but the plaintiff did not cross examine him. 5. It transpires that much thereafter the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application for cross examination of the Pleader Commissioner which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.1.2003. Against the said order the plaintiff-petitioner filed civil revision no.265 of 2003 which was also dismissed by this Court on 3.11.2004 with observation that ― if any petition is filed by the petitioner that the witness has stated beyond the record / report, then the court below will consider the petition for examination/cross examination of the witness and shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law.‖ 6. It transpires that more than seven months after the said order, plaintiff filed a similar application on 09.06.2005 for permitting him to cross examine the aforesaid witness, namely, Sri Mahendra Narayan Chaudhary, Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner in the light of the aforesaid observation of this Court. This application had been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 3.5.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently challenged the said order of the learned court below claiming that in paragraph 9 of his cross examination(Annexure-3) the aforesaid witness has stated that he has not located Schedule-A 3 land whereas in his report ( Annexure-2) he wrote that he has located Schedule-A land, hence, it is apparent that the said witness has stated beyond his report and thus in view of the order of this Court in the earlier civil revision the learned court below should have allowed him to cross examine the witness. 8. From the aforesaid arguments as well as the materials on record including the impugned order of the learned court below it is quite apparent that the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner has stated in his cross examination (annexure-3) as D.W.1 that he has not located schedule-A land whereas in his report(Annexure-2) he has stated that the said Schedule-A land had no separate identity and was amalgamated with plot no.1133. In the said circumstance it cannot be legally presumed that the statement of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was beyond his report, rather it is clear that due to amalgamation of two plots, Schedule –A land could not be located. Hence the learned court below after perusing the report rightly found that the survey knowing Pleader Commission in his deposition was trying to support the contents of the report submitted by him and he has stated nothing beyond the report. 9. In the said circumstance it quite apparent that neither there is any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor he has committed any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the hearing of the suit. Anil Kr.Sinha (S.N.Hussain,J.)