IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1462 of 2008 RAJ KISHORE DAS Versus SUSHILA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 08.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The Court below has considered the application of the plaintiff-opposite party as contained in annexure 3, whereby and whereunder, a prayer was made for constructing a new house in place of the existing house on the ground that the same had been destroyed and needed repairs. It, however, appears that some another application was also filed wherein a prayer was made for appointment of the Pleader Commissioner. The court below by the impugned order seems to have allowed such prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party by appointing a Pleader Commissioner despite objection raised by the defendant opposite party. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the garb of seeking appointment of the Pleader Commissioner the plaintiff opposite party is virtually collecting evidence for possession of the house in question. In this respect attention of this Court has been invited to the order passed by this Court on 12.07.2007 for maintaining status quo which was also passed on application filed by the defendant-petitioner. He would accordingly submit that while there can be no objection to the question no. 1 and 3 in the application filed by the plaintiff-opposite party, seeking prayer for appointment of Pleader Commissioner, but the second question as to whether the plaintiff opposite party are residing in the residential house, cannot be made a matter of the inquiry and consequential report of the Pleader Commissioner. In the context he would rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Padam Sen & Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in AIR 1961 S.C. 218, as also a judgment of this Court in the case of “Satya Narayan Paswan vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2000 (1) BLJR page 231. In the opinion of this Court the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to the aforementioned question no. 2 seems to be genuine. However, from the order of the court below it appears that such application of the plaintiff opposite party has been allowed exclusively to ascertain the manner of damage of the house in question and, therefore, the Pleader Commissioner would confine himself to the question no. 1 and question no. 3 of the application filed by the plaintiff opposite party but he would not submit any report as with regard to the possession of the house in question. With the aforementioned observation this application is dismissed. Kundan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)