IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.157 of 2009 RAM BRICHH SINGH son of late Sita Ram Singh, resident of Village Nawada Khurd, P.O. Sahdullahpur, P.S. Ganga Bridge Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali ……..Petitioner/Petitioner. Versus DEOKI SAH son of late Govind Sah, Resident of village + P.O. Sahdulllllahpur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, O.P. Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali ……. Defendant/O.P. –Ist set. 2.Nandraj Singh alias Nanda Singh son of late Hulas Singh. 3.Smt. Mukhiya Devi wife of Nandraj Singh alias Nanda Singh both residents of village + P.O. Sahdullahpur P.S. Gangabridge, O.P. Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali …..Defendants/O.P. –Iind Set. 4. Lakhan Singh 5. AshrfiSingh 6.Suresh Singh, all sons of late Mita Ram Singh 7.Birchandra Singh son of late Shyam lal Singh @ Yugal Singh 8. Mostt. Jitani Devi wife of Late Shyam Lal Singh, all resident of village Nawada Khurd, P.O. Sahdullahpur, P.S. Gangabridge, O.P. Hajipur,Dist. Vaishali ….Plaintiffs/O.P. IIIrd Set. ---------------- For thepetitioner : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate. --------- 7 10.08.2009 I.A. No. 548 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing of this Civil Revision.Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented learned counsel for the petitioner from filing this Civil Revision earlier. Accordingly the said interlocutory application is allowed and delay in the filing of this Civil Revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3..This Civil Revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner challenging the order dated 24.06.2008, by which the learned Civil Judge-I (Senior Division) Vaishali has rejected his petition dated 28.06.2006 and 29.08.2006, for appointment of Pleader Commissioner in Title Suit - 2 - No.462 of 2004. 4. The aforesaid Title Suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration of the two sale deeds dated 24.7.1972 and 13.9.1975 executed by Sitaram Singh in favour of Sitaram Sah as fraudulent, forged, void, illegal without consideration ineffective in operative and not binding on the plaintiff and also for other ancillary reliefs including the injunction. 5. It transpires that on 28.06.2006 the plaintiff- petitioner filed a petition in the court below for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for inspection and report regarding the physical features as well as the measurement of the land in suit on the points mentioned in the said petition. Other points were added to the said petition by a subsequent petition dated 29.8.2006 filed by the plaintiff. 6. The said petitions were vehemently opposed by the defendant who filed their rejoinder and contested the claim of the plaintiff. Finally the said petitions filed by the plaintiff were rejected by the learned court below by its impugned order which is challenge in this Civil Revision. 7. The law is well settled in this regard. 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, etc., 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. 8. However, in the instant case, it is quite apparent that the court has not found that any inspection was required in the matter rather it was the plaintiff who was trying to collect evidence in his favour through the - 3 - said procedure which cannot be allowed as it is for the parties to prove its pleading by producing valid evidence, failing which their pleadings cannot be legally entertained. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. (S.N.Hussain,J) M.Rahman