IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.498 of 2006 JAMADAR PRASAD Versus DHRUV SHAHI & ORS ----------- 4. 31.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the O.P. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order seeking to appoint second Pleader Commissioner without taking a decision on the report of the first Pleader Commissioner is a clear jurisdictional error, inasmuch as once the court had appointed a Pleader Commissioner with a specific term of reference and such a report has been received it had to take a decision whether that report was acceptable or was fit to be rejected. The order which has been passed by the court below by seeking to appoint another Pleader Commissioner is on an objection filed by the O.P., a copy whereof has been brought to my notice by way of Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit. From the same, it would be clear that initially in first to six paragraphs the report of the first Pleader Commissioner was criticized and was said to be malafide, obtained, 2 procured etc. Criticizing the report of the first Pleader Commissioner in detail in the said petition filed by the O.P. the prayer was also made that it would be in the interest of justice to appoint any other senior Advocate as Pleader Commissioner on three of the points as stated therein. The court below unfortunately has not taken care of whether these allegations made in paragraph 1-6 of the objection were correct or not correct. The court below in fact was required to first pass an order as to whether the allegation made by the petitioner against the report of the first Pleader Commissioner was fit to be sustained or was fit to be rejected. It is not in doubt that a power under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. can be exercised even by way of repetition in case the court is of the opinion that a second Pleader Commissioner is required to be appointed but such order has to be passed only after considering and passing an appropriate order on the report of the first Pleader Commissioner. This recourse having been not taken by the court below, this 3 Court cannot sustain the impugned order and accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and this revision application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/