IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8709 of 2011 Ram Das Mistry , Resident of Mohalla- Bhatha Kodi Asthan, Ward No.14, Purnea P.S. Khajanchi Nat, District- Purnea. ……. Plaintiff- petitioner. Versus 1. Govind Mistry son of Late Gikhul Mistry. Mohalla- Bhatha Kali Asthan, Ward No. 14, Purena P.S. Khajanchi Hat, District- Purena. 2. Ram Saran Das son of Munar Das, Resident of village Akbarpur, P.S.-Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur. …….. Defendants- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the First Additional Munsif, Purnea in T.S. No. 70 of 1987, by which the application of the petitioner- plaintiff under order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of Pleader Commissioner, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been filed in view of wrong entries made in the Survey records with regard to the lands, which were transferred by the petitioner in favour of the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit. It is his case that the respondent no.1, in collusion with one got some areas, more than 8 katha of land, carved out in the plot in question and claimed the possession thereon, which was the main cause of the filing the suit. The Court has 2 rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 19.01.2011, which is impugned in the present writ application. The Court below has considered the case in its entirety and has also given reasons for which it was not in favour of allowing the petition dated 21.9.2010 filed by the plaintiffs. The reasons given by the Court below appeared to be reasonable and in accordance with law. It is also felt that since the suit had been filed by the petitioner himself, who has attended such an application being filed only on 21.9.2010 itself, shows that the petitioner-plaintiff himself now wants to delay the matter. At the stage of which it has been filed clearly show that the plaintiff- writ petitioner wants the suit linger. Moreover, as has been observed in the order impugned, the plaintiff- petitioner shall not compromise or prejudice since the Court below has clearly stated that the reasons for which the Pleader Commissioner was sought to be appointed and taken care and records available. This Court is also in agreement with reasoning given by Court below that since the very fasten of actual possession is one of the main issue decided and undispute, it is not for the Pleader Commissioner to give such report to the actual posession of the parties which will ultimately fall upon the Court concerned for 3 adjudication after proper consideration of the materials on record and after verification by the parties. For the reasons aforesaid this Court does not find any merit in the application and the same is dismissed. The Court concerned is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the same within a maximum period of nine months from the date of communication of this order to the Court concerned. The registry shall communicate this order to the Court concerned. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)