Vijay Kumar Ojha v. Sanjay Kumar Ojha And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.587 of 2016 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Ojha .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Sanjay Kumar Ojha & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 07-09-2016 Heard learned counsel Mr. Dineshwar Mishra for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 passed by learned Subordinate Judge at Dumraon, Buxar in Title Suit No.37 of 2008.

It appears that this title suit was filed by the plaintiffrespondent claiming 1/3rd share. The suit was decreed. Defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 have also got 1/3rd share each. Pleader Commissioner was appointed for carving out 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. The Pleader Commissioner submitted his report separating 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. Thereafter defendant no.1 filed application for carving out 1/3rd share. The present petitionerdefendant no.2 filed objection. By the impugned order, the court below has rejected the objection of the petitioner and directed the Pleader Commissioner to carve out 1/3rd share and he has

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.587 of 2016 (2) dt.07-09-2016 cancelled the Pleader Commissioner's Report already submitted. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has recorded clear finding that earlier the Pleader Commissioner was directed to make separate Takhta of defendant no.1 by order dated 04.06.2011 but the Pleader Commissioner has not separated 1/3rd share of defendant no.1 and he submitted the report in the court below. Therefore, the court below has set aside the Pleader Commissioner's Report and has directed to submit further report carving out the share of defendant no.1 also with certain direction mentioned in the impugned order. In my opinion, in view of the finding of the court below that the Pleader Commissioner was directed earlier by allowing the application filed by defendant no.1, the court below has rightly directed the Pleader Commissioner to make separate Takhta of plaintiff and defendant no.1.

In such circumstances, it is not a case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. Harish/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U