IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11833 of 2011 Bindeshwar Pandey Versus Shail Kumari Devi & Ors ----------- 02. 25.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed by the defendant-respondent-petitioner against the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by A.D.J. IV, Chapra in Title Appeal No.19 of 1995 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court has allowed the petition dated 31.05.2011 filed by the plaintiff-respondent for appointment of Pleader Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the findings of the trial court that the Pleader Commissioner has failed to give description of lands remained with plaintiff after encroachment. The Pleader Commissioner also stated in his cross-examination that he has not given the measurement of the land of the defendant on the spot. He admitted that he has not mentioned distance between fixed point taken by him and the boundary of the plot no.939. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Lower Appellate Court found that it is necessary to appoint a Pleader Commissioner and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed. 2 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case that only a Pleader Commissioner has been appointed thereby and no rights of the parties have been infringed, I am not inclined to interfere the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)