IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2162 of 2006 Ram Bahadur Sharma, son of late Parmeshwar Sharma, resident of Village Chakdad, P.O. & P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. Chandradeo Yadav 2. Surya deo Yadav 3. Uaday Yadav All sons of late Rameshwar Raut, resident of village Mutlupur, P.O. +P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai. ….Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 4. Narsing Thakur 5. Ram Ashis Thakur 6. Munna Thakur All sons of late Ram Pyare Thakur, resident of village Chakdad, P.O. & P.S. Sub-Division-Teghra, District Begusarai. …Defendant Ist Party-Opposite 2nd party. 7. Kari Sharma, son of late Parmeshwar Sharma 8. Ram Pyari Devi, wife of Ram Bahadur Sharma …….Defendant 2nd party-Opposite 3rd party 9. Batoran Paswan 10. Jawahar Paswan Both sons of late Bishnu Paswan, residents of village Chakdat, P.O. And Sub-division Teghra, District Begusarai. ….Defendant 3rd party-Opp. 4th party ……..Opposite Parties. ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Kaushal Kumar Singh and Niraj Kumar No.1, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 13.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2- petitioner challenging order dated 08.11.2006, by which the learned Munsif-II, Begusarai, rejected his application for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for measurement of the suit land in Title Suit No. 65 of 1997. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite 2 parties for declaration of their title over the suit land and for recovery of its possession from the defendants and also for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants and after completion of the pleadings, issues were framed and hearing of the suit started, in which the plaintiffs’ evidence was completed and closed, whereafter defendants were to produce their evidence but in the meantime defendant-petitioner filed the aforesaid application in the court below, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent that according to the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the Court feels any necessity for elucidating any matter in dispute, it may appoint a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for the said purpose, but any of the parties cannot force the court for appointment of any Pleader Commissioner for collecting evidence on any point as parties must prove their case on the strength of their own evidence. 5. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )