IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21064 of 2011 Dasrath Singh & Ors Versus Kailash Singh & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 01.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant first party has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.08.2011 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the fact that the District Judge in Misc. Appeal directed the Court below to appoint Pleader Commissioner and get the disputed land measured and pursuant to that order, the Pleader Commissioner was appointed and he submitted report. The Pleader Commissioner has also been examined as P.W.8 and, therefore, the learned Court below rejected the application. Admittedly, the District Judge directed for appointment of Pleader Commissioner and directed the Court below to dispose of the suit expeditiously. After submission of the report by the Pleader Commissioner, he was examined as P.W.8. The present petitioner refused the cross-examine the Pleader Commissioner and, therefore, the Pleader commissioner was discharged and then the petitioner filed civil revision before the High Court and thereafter indulgence - 2 - was granted in favour of the petitioner then he cross- examined him. After such a long period, the application has been filed for appointment of Pleader Commissioner again. In such view of the matter, it appears that the report is available on record. The Pleader Commissioner has also been examined. It is well settled principle of law that mechanical indiscriminate appointment of more than one Commission merely because the Court thinks the other party to the proceedings may not be prejudiced or that the expenses for the Commissions are going to be born by the applicant for the purpose would create unhealthy practice of not only more than one report on records, but also would lead to the vice of a person or party to the proceedings not being satisfied with the Commissioner report seeking for the appointment of successive Commissioners till he is able to get a report of his choice. In view of the above facts, particularly when the report is available and the Pleader Commissioner has already been appointed, I find that the learned Court below has rightly refused to appoint the Pleader Commissioner. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)