The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to consider objections to the report of the Pleader Commissioner on merit and the authority to set aside the report as per the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10.

1. LA. No. 2749 of 2006 has been filed in Civil Revision no.1125 of 2006 for condoning the delay of about 9 months for filing the revision application.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier an order dated 28.7.2005 was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-11, Patna in Title suit No. 295 of 1994, in which it was held that the objection of the plaintiff-petitioners for setting aside the report of the Pleader Commissioner is not fit to be accepted. It is submitted that the petitioners were not correctly advised in the matter and instead of immediately challenging the said order by filing revision application before this court, the petitioners preferred an application before the court below seeking a review of the order dated 28.7.2005, which was rejected by order dated 7.9.2005 and against the same, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No.2099 of 2005 before this court within time.

3. However, after hearing of the said matter at the admission stage itself it came to the knowledge of the counsel that the main order having not been challenged, it will not be appropriate to set aside the order passed in rejecting the review application by the court below.

4. In the said circumstances, belatedly the Civil Revision No.1125 of 2006 has been filed challenging the earlier order dated 28.7.2005.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court considers that it is a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revision No. 1125 of 2006.

6. I.A. No. 2749 of 2006 is , accordingly, allowed.

7. Since both the revision applications arise out of the common issues, hence, with the consent of the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

8. The short facts relevant to the decision of the present matter are that at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioners, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed by the learned trial court by order dated 17.12.1998. The Pleader Commissioner submitted his report on 15.1.2004 to which the plaintiffs filed their objection on 10.2.2004. Thereafter, the said Advocate Commissioner was examined and his evidence was closed on 10.11.2004. Subsequently, the plaintiffs also closed their evidence on 24.11.2004 and the defendants closed their evidence on 11.1.2005. The objection to the report of the Advocate Commissioner was heard in which the point taken by the other side was that the said objection petition was not maintainable, since the suit was of the year 1994 and evidence of both the parties had also been closed and the matter was pending for argument. It was alleged that the plaintiffs somehow or the other wanted to keep the matter pending. It was further stand of the opposite parties that the evidence of the Advocate Commissioner is over and his report has also been marked as Ext. N. At the time of final hearing, the report of the Advocate Commissioner can be considered by the court. For the said reasons, it was submitted that the objection petition of the plaintiff-petitioners to set aside the report of the Pleader Commissioner is not fit to be accepted and their objection petition should be dismissed for those reasons.

9. On a consideration of the aforesaid arguments of both the sides, the court accepted the submissions made on behalf of the defendant-opposite parties and came to the conclusion that the objection petition of these petitioners for setting aside the report of the Advocate Commissioner is not fit to be accepted and at the time of final hearing of the suit, the report of the Pleader Commissioner can be considered. The objection petition was, accordingly, disposed of giving liberty to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to refer the report of the Pleader Commissioner at the time of final arguments. Against the said order, the petitioners earlier filed an application for review on 16.8.2005 under Order 47 Rule 1 and Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A rejoinder was filed by the defendan