JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 3. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 06.08.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Dumka, in Final Decree Case No. 01 of 2018, whereby, the civil miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. 3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Dhananjay Upadhyay and others instituted Title (Partition) Suit No. 46 of 2006 against the defendants praying therein a decree claiming partition of 1/5 th Share in Schedule-A and alternatively 1/4 th Share in Schedule-B properties fully described in the Schedule of the plaint and possession of for delivery the specific allotted portion as per the final decree to be given to the plaintiff. 4. He submits that the specific case of the plaintiff is that the Defendant No.4 namely Mritunjay Upadhyay sold his share i.e. specific portion of 4 Kathas 5 Dhurs in favour of Smt. Chinta Upadhyay i.e. the petitioner and she is in exclusive possession over the same. He further submits that after hearing the parties, the learned court has passed the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2015 in the said suit. He then submits that Mritunjay Upadhyay and Krishna Kumar Upadhyay instituted Title Suit No. 72 of 2006 in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Dumka, against Chinta Upadhyay, i.e. the petitioner and others praying therein for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Mritunjay Upadhyay in favour of Chinta Upadhyay on 06.12.2004, however, the same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016. He further submits that in para-26 of the said judgment, observation was made that the proforma defendant No. 7 namely Chinta Upadhyay by sale deed No. 1069/2004 has been declared valid and genuine by the learned court in Title Suit No. 72 of 2006 (Exhibit-1) and remaining legal heirs of late Bishwanath Upadhyay will get equal share in Schedule-B Property. He submits that the said suit was dismissed. He further submits that against the judgment passed in Title Partition Suit No. 46 of 2006, civil appeal No. 20 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner. He submits that the said suit was dismissed. He further submits that against the judgment passed in Title Partition Suit No. 46 of 2006, civil appeal No. 20 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner. He then submits that the petitioner filed objection before the learned civil Judge, Dumka in final decree proceeding praying therein for excluding the property of the petitioner, which has been rejected vide order dated 01.07.2022 in Final Decree Case No. 01 of 2018. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of that the petitioner filed a CMP No. 291 of 2023 before this court, which was disposed of by order dated 07.11.2023 observing that the petitioner apprehends that her share might not be included in the final decree and she will not get her land and it was further observed that the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties has raised no serious objection for allotment of share of the petitioner on the basis of whatever share may call to Defendant No.4 (vendor of the petitioner) by meats and bounds in accordance with the final decree. He submits that the said CMP was disposed of observing the above. He further submits that pursuant to the disposal of the CMP, the learned executing court has further proceeded by order dated 06.08.2024 and all the pending petitions have been disposed of and the Pleader Commissioner has been appointed. 6. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the observation may kindly be made that the share of the petitioner may kindly be excluded from the property. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Baban Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 3 jointly submit that there is no illegality in the order and only the pleader commissioner has been appointed by the said order by way of disposing all the pending petitions and that has been done considering all the observations and also considering the judgment passed in the Title Suit as well as the observation made by this court in CMP No. 291 of 2023. 8. 8. Looking into the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court has taken care of and noted the observation of the High Court, passed in CMP No. 291 of 2023 and he has also noted that opposite parties have not raised any serious objection on the allotment of the share of the applicant on the basis of whatever share may fall to defendant No. 4. Thus, the learned court has taken care of about the share of the petitioner and appointed only the pleader knowing commissioner. The grievance of the petitioner can be fulfilled, once the pleader knowing commissioner submits a report. In light of the observation made in the said order, the pleader knowing commissioner is required to file a report. 9. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the right of the petitioner has been taken care of by the learned court. As such, the court finds that the prayer made in this petition is misconceived one. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.