IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.639 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR Versus BASUKI BIND @ SHAMBHU BIND & ANR ----------- 2. 22/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against order dated 15.1.2009 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Lakhisarai in Title Suit No.44 of 2007, by which learned court below has rejected the petition of the plaintiff for appointment of Pleader Commissioner and for submission of report with regard to physical feature of the property in question. From the impugned order it appears that the court below has not at all considered the grounds made out by the plaintiff in his petition for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. The only expression used by learned court below for rejecting the petition for appointment of Pleader Commissioner is that “The plaintiff by appointing a pleader commissioner wants to report about the suit land which is not proper”. Apparently, learned court below has not at all exercised its jurisdiction as vested in him under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned court below was - 2 - at least required to consider the reasons made out by the plaintiff for appointment of pleader Commissioner. In the circumstances, order dated 15.1.2009 is set aside and learned court below is directed to re-hear both the parties on the said petition of the plaintiff and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, this revision application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)