1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.491 of 2007 1. Jagdish Mahto @ Jagdish Yadav, son of late Jay Lal Mahto 2. Prasadi Mahto 3. Jagdish Mahto, both sons of late Akalu Mahto All residents of village Korane Bhathuraidih, P.O. Korane P.S. Chandramandi, District Jamui. ….Defendants-Petitioners. -versus- 1. Md. Sulamaan 2. Md. Nilu Rahman 3. Md. Salim 4. Md. Jakir 5. Md. Batul All sons of late Md. Usman 6. Jamila Begum 7. Mamora Begam 8. Sanbara Begam 9. Sanbara Begam 10. Pano Begam All daughters of late Md. Usman 11. Md. Hussain 12. Md. Muddin both sons of late Karim Mian 13. Md. Latif 14. Md. Habib 15. Md. Mehboob 16. Md. Khalil 17. Md. Taiyab 18. Md. Islam, All sons of late Junab Mian. 19. Md. Ibrahim 20. Md. Razma 21. Md. Salim 22. Md. Nazir All sons of late Noor Mian 23. Md. Chamru 24. Md. Ramzan Both sons of late Mahmood All resident of village Chandramandi, P.O. and P.S. Chandramandi, District Jamui ……..Plaintiffs…Opposite Ist Party 25. Asharfi Mahto, son of late Gursahay Mahto Resident of village Bhaturaidih, P.O. Korane, P.S. Chandramandi, District Jamui … Defendants-Opposite 2nd Party. ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, Advocate For Opp. Parties : M/s Surendra Kishore Thakur and S.P. Parasar, Advocates. ---- 2 ----------- 03/ 27.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 08.12.2006 by which the learned Additional Munsif III, Jamui, rejected their petition for appointment of Pleader Commissioner in Title Suit No. 50 of 1998. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties for declaration of title and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. Subsequently the evidence of plaintiffs was completed and closed and the evidence of defendants started, in which they had adduced seventeen witnesses till the date of passing of the impugned order. 4. The law is very clear in this matter as Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute etc. it may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court, but in the instant case it is quite apparent that the Court is of the specific view that no local investigation 3 through commission appointed by the Court is required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It transpires that it is the defendants-petitioners, who are trying to create some evidence through process of the court by using this method, which cannot be allowed. The case of the party must rise or fall as per his own pleadings and evidence. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )