1. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.6.2007 passed by the Sub-Judge IV, Patna in Title Suit No. 273 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the court below has refused to appoint survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to make proper scientific measurement of the suit land on two grounds i.e. (i) earlier the petition filed by the petitioners was rejected which was not challenged by them before the higher court and (ii) on the ground of delay as the petition has been filed at argument stage.

3. As it appears from the record that the original land holder was one Dr. Dilip kumar Pal and in whose name plot no. 135, total area of 17 Katha and 14 Dhurs of land had been recorded in the cadastral survey. The dimension of plot was 94’.4” on the North, 103’.0” on South, 276’.6” on East and 234’.4” on West. Dr. Dilip Kumar Pal sold 3 Katha and 8 Dhurs of land having dimension of 46’.0” on the northern side from east to West, 50’.4” on the Southern side from East to West, 100’.9” both on Eastern and Western side in favour of Dr. Braj Nandan Sahay defendant Ist set and Ahilya Sahay. On the same day