IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14744 of 2011 Sudama Singh Versus Sachidanand Pandey ---------------------------------- 03. 19.09.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2011 passed in Title Suit No.370 of 2008 by Sub Judge IInd, Buxar whereby the learned Court below rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property but the defendant- respondent is always interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, to inspect and report the status of the suit property, this application was filed but wrongly the learned Court below rejected the application. At the time of hearing of this application, the learned counsel admitted the fact that only issues have been framed. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has stated that at this stage the application of the plaintiff-petitioner cannot be entertained. It is well settled principle of law that the appointment of Pleader Commissioner cannot be made for collecting evidence for the parties. In such view of the matter, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)