IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.75 of 2007 UMESH DAS Versus RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 02. 05.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, who has challenged order of the learned court below dated 02.12.2006 passed in Title suit No. 222 of 1998(57 of 2005) by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Vaishali, accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner for considering it at the time of final decision. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner and opposite party 2nd set against the defendant-opposite party 1st set for declaration that the four sale deeds in question were illegal, not binding on the plaintiff and other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit pleadings were completed, issues were framed and evidences of both sides were concluded. In the said suit Pleader Commissioner’s report was submitted by the defendant for taking it into evidence and same had been accepted by the learned court below by the impugned order. The objection of the plaintiff-petitioner is that a report of Pleader Commissioner appointed only by a party and not by the court cannot be held to be a report as per the provision of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, from the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the alleged Pleader commissioner has been examined by the defendant and has also been cross-examined by the plaintiff, hence, it is quite apparent that the court was justified in - 2 - accepting his report as an evidence but it has to be considered merely as a piece of evidence without treating it to be a report under the provision of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to consider the objection raised by the plaintiff-petitioner with regard to the aforesaid Pleader Commissioner’s report, at the time of final decision in the suit. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)