IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14752 of 2010 1. ROHAN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE JUNG BAHADUR SINGH R/O VILL.- BHATTA BAZAR, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA 2. RUPALI SINGH @ REPALI SINGH W/O LATE JUNG BAHADUR SINGH R/O VILL.- BHATTA BAZAR, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA 3. KUMAR RITESH S/O LATE JUNG BAHADUR SINGH R/O VILL.- BHATTA BAZAR, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA 4. RITIKA D/O LATE JUNG BAHADUR SINGH R/O VILL.- BHATTA BAZAR, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA Versus 1. SMT. MUNNI DEVI W/O GOPALJI VERMA R/O VILL.- SARVODAYA NAGAR, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA 2. SRI GALIB JUNG BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE MAHABIR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- BHATTA BAZAR, P.S.- K. HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA ----------- 2/ 24/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Earlier a Pleader Commissioner was appointed who has submitted his report. The petitioner filed his objections which were rejected on 17.4.2010. Thereafter he filed a fresh application under Order-18, Rule-18 C.P.C. requesting the Court to call for evidence as he was dissatisfied with the report of the Pleader Commissioner. That has been rejected by the impugned order. The report of the Pleader Commissioner is not final and its evidentiary value is to be considered at the time of trial of the suit itself. Notwithstanding the same, in the present case after rejection of his application on 17.4.2010, what was not available to him directly is sought to be invoked by the petitioner indirectly by placing reliance on Order-18 Rule-18 C.P.C. which is basically the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. The 2 impugned order holds that the petitioner by filing one application after another was seeking to somehow delay the disposal of the suit itself. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)