IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1488 of 2008 RAMAKANT CHAUBEY & ANR Versus SMT. TARA DEVI ----------- 2 9.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. This Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the court below in appointing a Pleader Commissioner in exercise of its power under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a matter of fact such exercise of jurisdiction being wholly discretionary can also not be interfered by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Realizing this position in law, learned Counsel very fairly submits that the petitioners were not aggrieved on account of appointment of the Pleader Commissioner but then they have an apprehension that they would not be allowed to have their say at the time of such inspection and measurement of the land in question by the Pleader Commissioner. In the opinion of this Court, such apprehension is wholly misconceived as the law itself enjoins upon the Pleader Commission to issue notice to the parties to be present at the time of his enquiry. The further apprehension of the petitioners that they would be remediless after any report is filed by the 2 Pleader Commissioner is also not tenable inasmuch as it is well settled that after a Pleader Commissioner submits a report, it is always open for the party to file objection before the same is confirmed by the court. That being so, this civil revision application, is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed with aforesaid observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)