JUDGMENT : This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the learned Civil-Judge, Senior Division, (Sub-Judge-II), Dalsinghsarai in Title Suit No. 11 of 2014 whereby he has allowed the application dated 07.07.2015 filed by the respondent no.1 for permission for doing necessary repairing work of the old house. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order impugned dated 18.11.2017 is bad in law as the court below allowed to carry out the repair of the house by a bald and unreasoned order without deciding the location of the alleged khapraposh house and its existence on the suit property. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below. He submitted that the petitioners have themselves admitted before the court below that the respondent no. 1 who is defendant no. 1 in the court below is in possession of 10 dhurs of land over which a hut was constructed by forcibly dispossessing them. He contended that the court below has passed the order in the interest of justice and seeing the need of doing the repair work of the existing khapraposh built house after considering the pleader commissioner's report. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order. 5. The petitioners filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2014 for declaration of exclusive right, title and possession over the schedule 1 and for recovery of possession on schedule 1/A of the plaint. Schedule 1 consists of 13 dhurs of land whereas schedule 1/A consist of 10 dhurs of land. It is the case of the plaintiffs petitioner that out of this 10 dhurs land the defendant no. 1 have illegally constructed a hut by forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs. 6. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the entire suit land was recorded in the cadestral survey in the name of Chulhai Dhobi and others and the respondent no. 1 is the successors of said Chulhai Dhobi. He is in possession of the entire 13 dhurs of land and the plaintiffs have no right or title over the entire property in dispute. 7. 1 is the successors of said Chulhai Dhobi. He is in possession of the entire 13 dhurs of land and the plaintiffs have no right or title over the entire property in dispute. 7. The court below after hearing the parties took into consideration the pleadings of the parties and concluded that the admitted case of the plaintiff/petitioners is that the defendant/respondent no. 1 is in possession of the suit land and the pleader commissioner's report also shows existence of old khaparposh hut and taking into consideration the interest of justice and need of respondent no. 1 passed the order impugned whereby he has allowed repairing work of old house. 8. Considering the pleadings of the parties, in my considered opinion, no perversity can be found with the order impugned. Since the admitted case of the petitioners is that it is the contesting respondent no. 1, who is in possession over the suit land over which hut has been built, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners in case the court below has allowed repairing work to be undertaken specially when the pleader commissioner has also reported that there is an old khapraposh over the suit land. 9. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this application. The application is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court shall not prejudice the case of the parties in the court below on merits.