IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16299 of 2011 Nageshwar Mistri Versus Shivnandan Mandal & Ors ---------------------------------- 05. 07.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by Sub Judge 3, Madhepura in title Suit No. 182 of 2006 whereby the court below rejected the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below considered the nature of the suit and the defence. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for declaration that revisional khatiyan entry recorded in the name of the defendant is wrong and illegal. On the contrary according to the defendants they claimed right, title and possession on the basis of settlement in favour of their fore father. The learned court below considering these facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that which party is in possession is a disputed question that may be decided on the basis of the evidence that may be produced by the parties. This view cannot be delegated to the Pleader Commissioner as prayed for by the plaintiff. In my opinion, therefore, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The impugned order therefore, cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)