IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1692 of 2008 SURENDRA RAI Versus HARDEO RAI @ BHADAR RAI & ORS ----------- 2 01.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, when the report of the Pleader Commissioner was filed on 26.5.2008 and an application was filed by the defendant-opposite party for rejecting such report of the Pleader Commissioner, the Court below ought to have given one opportunity to the petitioner to explain that such report of the Pleader commissioner was absolutely in terms of the writ issued to him. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that no such opportunity was given and in fact the Court below within four days of filing of an objection by the defendants-opposite parties had passed the impugned order. The Counsel seems to be correct because in the impugned order, there is no reference to any plea of the petitioner as against the objection of the defendant-opposite party for rejecting the report of Pleader Commissioner. It is quite difficult to believe that a report of Pleader Commissioner which was in favour of the petitioner, would not be sought to be defended by him specially there was a prayer of the defendant opposite party to cancel/reject such report of Pleader Commissioner. That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court below to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner must file his objection within a period of one month from the date of - 2 - receipt/production of a copy of this order as against the application seeking rejection of the report of the Pleader Commissioner filed by the defendant-opposite parties and thereafter the Court below will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in next three months. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)