IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1285 of 2006 BHOLA BELDAR @ BHOLA PRASAD & ORS Versus SMT.KANTI DEVI & ANR ----------- 3 16.12.2008 Heard Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 3101 of 2006), the delay in filing of the civil revision application is condoned. Coming to the merits of the case, though this Court would find that one of the reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the objection of the petitioners as against the report of the Pleader Commissioner, is not tenable in law inasmuch as no period of limitation has been prescribed with regard to assailing the report of the Pleader Commissioner but then the ultimate object of such objection is only to bring to the notice of the Court that the report of the Pleader Commissioner is not sacrosanct. This the petitioners can always do either at the time of cross- examining the Pleader Commissioner at the time when he appears to prove his report or even in course of argument having produced his own evidence to 2 contradict whatever has been stated by the Pleader Commissioner in his report. Obviously, nothing would turn on only on account of confirmation of the report of the Pleader Commissioner by itself. That being so, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)