1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2009 of 2009 ----------- Ashok Kumar Sah, son of late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, resident of Patel Babu Road under P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur. -Plaintiff-Petitioner -versus- 1. Dr. Dinesh Prasad Sah, son of late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, resident of near K. K. Nurshing Home, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur 2. Sri Vijay Kumar Sah, son of late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, resident of 5220, Mason Road, T. K. 38117-2117, Memphis, U.S.A. 3. Deo Narayan Sah, son of late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, resident of 80 Barton Road, Plattebugh, New York 12901, U.S.A. 4. Sri Amrendra Kumar Sah, son of late Arvind Prasad Sah of I.T.T.C. 125, Sahchr Vihar, Manbapur, Gonda (U.P.) 5. Surendra Prasad Sah, son of late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, Sanjay Pharmacy, Allalpotti, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 6. Smt. Bina Sah, wife of Balanand Prasad and d/o late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, resident of Shiv Bhawan, Shikharpur, under P.S. Kotwali in the town and district of Bhagalpur. 7. Dr. Meena Mahaseth, wife of Dr. K.P. Mahaseth and d/o of late Dr. Laxmi Prasad Sah, resident of Allalpatti, Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. …Defendant 2nd set/Opp. Party 8. Sri Manoj Kumar Sah, son of late Lakhanlal Sah, resident of Mohalla Mundichak, Radha Debi Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Bhagalpur. Defendants 3rd set./Opp. Party. ------ For the Petitioner : M/s N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate and Vijay Anand, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ----- 04/ 03.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Office has noted that this civil revision is not maintainable in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramadhar Pathak vrs. Lal Babu Pathak & Ors., reported in 1997(2) P.L.J.R. 457 as by the order impugned in this civil revision, learned court below has rejected the objection to the Pleader Commissioner’s report and affirmed the Pleader Commissioner’s report in a final decree proceeding and has also 2 directed the office to take further steps in that regard. 3. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contests the said office report, but from a perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, it is quite apparent that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal against the final decree and in that appeal, if filed, he will be entitled to take all the objections including the objections raised by him in the instant civil revision. 4. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is dismissed as not maintainable. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )