IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22054 of 2011 Mosst.Rita Sinha & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 03. 20.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by Sub Judge-5th Muzaffarpur in Partition Suit No. 10 of 2003 whereby the court below set aside the report of the Pleader Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of service of notice the defendants did not appear to contest the suit. During the final decree proceeding also after due service of notice the defendants did not appear and the Pleader Commissioner submitted the report but nobody filed any objection but the learned court below by the impugned order set aside the Pleader Commissioner’s report. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below perused the order sheet and papers filed by the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner and found that survey maps of only three villages out of eight villages were prepared by the Pleader Commissioner and altogether five maps were prepared leaving three villages. The learned court below also found that the Pleader Commissioner made physical verification and local inspection of only five villages. The learned court below also found that the Pleader Commissioner did not mention about 2 the sold land of the village which was sold by the respondent and did not disclose total area of the suit land and quantum of land nor considered the value and nature of the land. On these grounds, the learned court below rejected the Pleader Commissioner’s report. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that these grounds stated in the impugned order are not tenable and it is not correct is concerned that cannot be decided in the supervisory jurisdiction. In fact if it is so that the grounds for rejection is not exists and it is error of record then the petitioners should have moved the court below. In my opinion, in supervisory jurisdiction the sufficiency or otherwise of the reason or the correctness or otherwise of the reason assigned by the court below or on the ground that it is error of record, supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Therefore, I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)