(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.6.20,07 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 landholder was one Dr. Dilip Kumar Pal and in whose name plot no. 135, total area of 17 Kathas 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 Kathas 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 1st set and Ahilya Sahay. On the same day Dr. Pal had also executed the sale deed to Tetar Devi, the ancestors of defendants 2nd party having dimension of 48'6" on the Northern side from East to West, 44'.2" on the southern side from East to West side and 109'.9" both on East and West and later on Dr. Pal had entered into an agreement to sale for 10 Kathas and 14 Dhurs of land with Manju Jalan and Sangeeta Devi Tibrawalla on 11.9.1989. The plaintiffs are attorney holder from Dr. Pal with respect to the suit land for various purposed. The dispute arose with regard to occiipation of land as from the side of the petitioners it was stated that the land was encroached by the defendants side which was disputed by them.