IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.857 of 2018

======================================================

Kamleshwar Pd. Singh, Son of Late Harivansh Narain Singh Resident of

Village Kuwanli Ram, P.S.- Bangara, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Shashishekhar Pd. Singh Son of Late Harivans Narain Singh, Resident of

Village Kuwanli Ram, P.S.- Bangara, District- Samastipur.

2.

Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Late Harivansh Narain Singh, Resident of

Village Kuwauli Ram, P.S.- Bangara, District- Samastipur.

3.

Kapileshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Kuwauli Ram, P.S.- Bangara,

District- Samastipur.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Devendra Kumar

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

ORAL ORDER

2

11-08-2022

Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

02.04.2018 passed in F.D. Case No. 314 / 2001 by which the

objection filed by the petitioner-defendant no.1 upon the report

of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner in the

proceedings of final decree has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

learned Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner did not visit the

spot for verification and did not issue any notice to the

petitioner prior to the preparation of the report and he prepared

the report sitting in his chamber or drawing room. He next

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.857 of 2018(2) dt.11-08-2022

2/3

submits that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner by

the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner before preparation

of the report.

From perusal of the impugned order it appears that

the plaintiff has filed rejoinder to the objection filed by the

petitioner-defendant no.1 and has stated that interest of all the

parties as per share allotted in the preliminary decree has been

taken care of by the Survey Knowing Advocate Commissioner.

The report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner is at

Annexure-3 to the present application and from perusal of the

same it appears that share of the petitioner as well as other co-

sharers has been carved out and the Survey Knowing Pleader

Commissioner has prepared a map showing different colours in

the map for identification of the shares allotted to the respective

parties. Learned trial court after having considered the objection

petition of the petitioner has come to the finding that the

petitioner/defendant no. 1 has not pointed out any specific error

in the report and only general objection has been taken by the

petitioner.

Regard being had to the submissions made by the

petitioner and after having gone through the material on record

and the impugned order, I am satisfied that no specific error has

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.857 of 2018(2) dt.11-08-2022

3/3

been pointed out in the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader

Commissioner and from the report it appears that separate share

has been allotted to the petitioner.

I do not find any merit in this application.

Accordingly this civil miscellaneous application is

dismissed.

praful/-

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

U