IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.126 of 2007 ---- Md.Julus Mansoori @ Md.Julus S/O Md. Karu Nada, resident of Bihpur, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur. -- Intervenor-Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Bhagalpur. 2. Deputy Collector, Land Revenue, Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. 3. Circle Officer, Bihpur Anchal, At + P.O. Bihpur, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur. --Defendants- Opposite Party 1st Set. 4. Sk. Sahadat S/o Late Sk. Mauji 5. Sk. Sami Ahmad S/o Late Sk. Kiyam 6. Sk. Inmil Ahmad S/o Late Sk. Kiyam 7. Sk.Sabir S/O Late Sk. Nanir 8. Iste Khar S/o Late Sk. Manir 9. Sk. Julfikar S/o Late Sk. Manir 10. Sk. Wakil S/o Late Sk. Ajhar 11. Sk. Sakil S/o Late Sk. Ajhar 12. Sk. Halim @ Alim S/o Late Jamruddi 13. Bibi Runo D/o Late Insan 14. Bibi Funo D/O Late Insan 15. Sk. Amruddi S/o Late Jhakhu All by caste Muslim by occupation cultivation and labourer resident of village Bihpur, P.O. and P.S. Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. -- Plaintiffs-Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh -2, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the intervenor- defendant -petitioner challenging order dated 18.10.2006 by which learned Munsif Naugachia appointed a survey knowing pleader commissioner in Title Suit No.104 of 1995. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties 2nd Set for declaration of their title and also for declaring that - 2 - the survey entry in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar was null and void and also for injunction and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after evidence of both the parties were closed, the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below only for the purpose of collecting evidence which is not desirable in law. In that regard, he refers to a decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Union of India and another Vs. M/s Kripal Industries, reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan, 224. 5. Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below, it transpires that the case was duly fought between the original parties to the suit, namely plaintiffs- O.P.2nd Set and defendants- O.P. 1st Set, but due to intervention of the petitioner in the suit raising his own claim he had confused the matter and now there are two claims with respect to the land recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar (defendant-O.P. 1st Set) and in that circumstances it was necessary to ascertain the facts and elucidate the matter of possession which is in dispute. Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the court. - 3 - 6. In view of the aforesaid specific provision of law, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 1995, the learned court below is directed to expedite its disposal. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)