IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16396 of 2011 Baban Mahto Versus Dachhini Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 06. 21.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant-respondent has filed this application challenging the order dated 04.06.2011 passed by Additional District Judge IV, Saran at Chapra in Misc. Appeal No.38 of 2010 whereby the learned lower appellate court has appointed a Pleader Commissioner to inspect the suit premises and directed the Pleader Commissioner to give a detailed report regarding the physical feature of the suit land and property after making inspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below in the facts and circumstances of the case could not have directed the inspection of the suit premises because the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been rejected and against the said rejection order, the appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may on the application of any party to a suit and on such terms as it thinks fit make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject matter of such suit or as to which any question may arise therein. Therefore, 2 this provision clearly empowers the Court to inspect the suit premises. In exercise of this discretionary jurisdiction, the Court has passed the impugned order. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a case of jurisdictional error as such, it cannot be interfered with in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)