IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.868 of 2008 BHAGWAT YADAV Versus DINA NATH YADAV & ORS ----------- 3 11.07.2008 Heard counsel for petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23.5.2008 allowing the application of the plaintiff, opposite party for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned order and the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayanti Kuer & Ors.Vs Laxmichand Upadhyay & Ors. reported in 2000(1) PLJR 231, contends that the Court below has committed jurisdictional error in appointing Pleader Commissioner in as much as in the judgment of Jayanti Kuer (supra), this Court has already held that a pleader Commissioner will not be allowed to determine the question of possession of the property when there is a dispute between the parties regarding the same and such a question has to be in fact, decided by the Court. This Court, infact would find that the ratio of Jayanti Kuer (supra) is absolutely in - 2 - consonance with the spirit of Order XXVI Rule 9 which vests power to a Court to appoint a Pleader Commissioner for local investigation. Order XXVI Rule 9 itself lays down that such an appointment of Pleader Commissioner can be allowed for the purposes of illustrating in the matter of dispute or ascertaining the market value of any property of damages or the annual income etc. Therefore, the impugned order appointing Pleader Commissioner by itself cannot be said to be bad but it is made clear that neither the question of possession would not be gone into by the pleader Commissioner nor the court below would base its such decision on the basis of report of the Pleader Commissioner. With the aforesaid observation/clarification this Civil Revision application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)