IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10255 of 2011 Mahadeo Sah Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 06. 18.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.2006 passed by Additional Munsif, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No.119 of 2003 whereby the learned Court below refused to appoint second Pleader Commissioner for measurement of the encroachment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the Pleader Commissioner was appointed by the Court but the Pleader Commissioner submitted a report in collusion with the respondents second set and, therefore, it is necessary to appoint second Pleader Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that he is ready to bear the cost of the Pleader Commissioner that may be appointed second time. The title suit was filed by the petitioner along with the other plaintiffs in the representative capacity for removal of encroachment on the public road. It appears that Pleader Commissioner was appointed for measuring the encroachment and the Pleader Commissioner has also submitted a report. 2 From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below observed that the allegation of the plaintiff that the Pleader Commissioner has been gained over and influenced by the defendant no.5 is concerned, it is frivolous because except the statement there is nothing on record. The learned Court below also observed that unless the Pleader Commissioner is examined in the light of his report at this stage the report of the Pleader Commissioner cannot be set aside on the mere allegation of the petitioner to the effect that it has been submitted by the Pleader Commissioner in collusion with the respondents. The order is of the year 2006. In the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) 6 S.C.C. 675, the Apex Court has laid down 9 propositions at paragraph 38 for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Among the said 9 propositions, the proposition no.4 is quoted here-in- below: “(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned 3 thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” At proposition 7 of the said paragraph, the Apex Court has held that the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. In view of the above settled principles of law, in my opinion, this is not a case of said nature. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, it is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)