IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1114 of 2008 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PRASAD GUPTA@CHANDRA BHUSHAN GUPTA Versus AMAR NATH SRIVASTAVA & ORS ----------- 3. 11.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order refusing to appoint the Pleader Commissioner does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and therefore is not fit to be interfered by this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Shekhar Singh vs. State Bank of India & ors., reported in 2005(2) PLJR 524. From a bare look of that judgment it would appear that there was a dispute between the plaintiff and subsequently added defendant no.4 as with regard to the suit premises and the claim of the plaintiff was based on auction purchase whereas defendant no.4 was claiming it to have purchased by a sale deed. In that situation as because the plaintiff had come into possession of the property in which the State Bank of India was a tenant, this Court had found the necessity to ascertain the real nature of 2 the property for which the dispute had brought. Here in the present case the petitioner claims to be in possession of the property and only part thereof is said to be encroached by the defendants opposite parties. Thus, when the suit for declaration of title of the petitioner is pending, this Court would not find the ratio of Ram Shekhar Singh’s case (supra) to be in any manner relevant much less to be followed in the facts of the present case. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/