Judgment 1. Plaintiffs-petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2005 passed by the Munsif IIIrd, Chapra in Title Suit No. 197 of 1993 rejecting the Advocate Commissioners report, have preferred this application. 2. On an application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners, the court below by order dated 11.6.2004 appointed the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner on the points indicated in the application. 3. In the said application, points to be answered by the Advocate Commissioner were indicated, which read as follows: "(1) The Advocate Commissioner will visit village Parmanandpur P.O. & P.S. Sonepur District Saran and after inspecting the suit property the details of which are given in Schedule-I of plaint and thereafter scientifically pegging out and measuring the disputed lands and thereafter to report in details alongwith a sketch map whether there is any structure over the suit plots or not. (2) That the Commissioner also to report whether any portion of R.S. Plot No. 388 R.S.Khata No. 265 has became part and parcel of Chapra-Sonepur P.W.D. road on the eastern side or not. (3) That the Commissioner will also to note any other point or points if so, to be pointed out at the spot with respect to the suit lands." 4. The Advocate Commissioner visited the place and submitted his report (Annexure 6) in which answered the aforesaid points in the following manner: "(1) The plaintiffs identified structures one Saloon and the other brick built construction as his own, the measurement of which is shown on page 7 of the field Book. From measurement I find that the above structure lie within 19½ dhoor of block of land measuring 55 Iks. on west and 55 on east, 56 links on north and 76 Iks. on south in amalgamated R.S. plot number 387 + 388. (2) From my inspection at spot, I did not find any portion of 388 amalgamated of becoming part and parcel of Chapra Sonepur P.W.D. road. (3) Nothing specific was pointed out to me on spot." 5. Defendant No. 1 filed objection to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. By reason of the impugned order, said prayer has been allowed and the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner has been rejected. 6. Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the court below had rejected the Advocate Commissioners report committing an error of record. By reason of the impugned order, said prayer has been allowed and the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner has been rejected. 6. Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the court below had rejected the Advocate Commissioners report committing an error of record. He points out that the Advocate Commissioner had given the report on the points on which he was asked to give his report but the court below had rejected the Advocate Commissioners report on the ground that it has not given report on these points. 7. Mr. Mishra as also J.C. to A.A.G. Ill, appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to 4 submit that the court below did not commit any error in passing the order and, as such, the order impugned is not fit to be interfered by this court. 8. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Shrivastava. The points on which the Advocate Commissioner was asked to submit the report have been incorporated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment so also his report. I am of the opinion that the court below while passing the order had committed an error of record that the Advocate Commissioner had not submitted the report on the points asked for. This had led to passing of the impugned order. 9. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in regard to the merit of the report. 10. In the result, the application is allowed, order dated 26.12.2005 passed by the Munsif IIIrd, Chapra in Title Suit No. 197 of 1993 is set aside. There shall be no order as to. costs.