-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 430 of 2022 Smt. Kaushalya Mandal, aged about 72 years, wife of Raghunath Mandal, resident of village-Kandedih, P.O. & P.S.-Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. Durga Prasad Mandal 2. Gurupada Mandal 3. Kalachand Mandal All sons of Late Jhupar Mandal, 4. Smt. Jhinia Mandalain, Wife of Late Jhupar Mandal 5. Nandlal Mandal 6. Bankim Mandal Both sons of Ajodhya Mandal 7. Arun Kumar Mandal 8. Mathura Prasad Mandal 9. Umesh Mandal All sons of Late Lalu Mandal 10. Subhas Mandal 11. Prayag Mandal Both Sons of Mulu Mandal 12. Dwijapada Mandal, son of Kinu Mandal 13. Ankur Mandal, son of Late Kashi Mandal 14. Kansari Mandal 15. Magaram Mandal Both sons of Late Dhaju Mandal 16. Tilak Mandal, son of Late Ajodhya Mandal All are residents of village resident of village-Kandedih, P.O. & P.S.-Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mrr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ------ 11/ 04.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3, who are the contesting respondents. 2. By the earlier order, notice upon O.P. Nos. 4 to 16 has been dispensed with, as they are the proforma respondents. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Dhanbad, in Title Partition Suit No. 37 of 1984 now Original Suit No. 120 of 2021, whereby, the objection of the defendants against the pleader commissioner report has -2- been allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the pleader commissioner was appointed, pursuant to the preliminary decree and report has been submitted beyond the scope of the preliminary decree. He submits that the learned court has allowed the said petition of the defendants, however, he has not complied the provisions made under Order-XVI, Rule-14(3) of the CPC. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties submits that the learned court has rightly allowed the said objection and it is open to the learned court to pass further order in light of Order-XVI, Rule-14(3) of the CPC. 6. The court has looked into the order dated 19.05.2022 and finds that the learned court has come to the conclusion that in the preliminary decree, the plot No. 418 was not included and only Plot No. 448 was there and the pleader commissioner has included the plot No. 418, in view of that the learned court has allowed the said objection. Learned court has further directed to appoint fresh pleader commissioner. If such a situation is there and only considering that the plot No. 418 was not the part of the preliminary decree, the objection was allowed, to that effect there is no illegality in the said impugned order and further the learned court has followed the procedure prescribed under Order-XVI, Rule-14(3) of the CPC. Once fresh report of Pleader commissioner is placed on record, the petitioner may file proper objection to that effect, and the said stage is not reached as yet. 7. In view of the above, the learned court has rightly passed the said order and there is no illegality in the same, as such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-