IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15989 of 2011 Ram Samhoot Singh @ Samhoot Yadav Versus Ram Bahadur Rai ---------------------------------- 05. 25.10.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Kamal Deo Sharma on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Aditya Narain Singh No.1 on behalf of the respondent. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by Sub Judge V, Buxar in title suit no.30 of 2004 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner 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 has observed that the plaintiff’s evidence has already been closed and the defendant is required to produce evidence but instead of producing the evidence, the defendant has filed this application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. According to the learned Court below, therefore, at this stage, at the instance of the defendant, the Pleader Commissioner cannot be appointed. From perusal of a copy of the plaint produced on behalf of the respondent, it appears that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff only for declaration that the 2 sale deed executed by vendor of the defendant no.1 has no right and authority to execute the sale deed therefore, the sale deed is void and illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order nor there is any jurisdictional error and, therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)