IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.366 of 2007 1. Rambilash Jha 2. Ram Shankar Jha, Both sons of Late Amiri Lal Jha, resident of village Shubhankarpur Pohaddi, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. ……Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Ganga Jha 2. Laltuna Jha 3. Amarnath Jha, All sons of Late Harinandan Jha, all residents of village Shubhankarpur Pohaddi, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. ….Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. For the petitioners : M/s Girish Chandra Jha and Rajib Ranjan Jha, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 31.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 16.01.2007 by which the learned Munsif, Benipur (Darbhanga) rejected their application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner in Title Suit No.04 of 1998. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties for declaration of their title over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants by way of filing of written statement whereafter issues were framed, evidence started, evidence of the plaintiffs concluded and date was fixed for the defendants to produce their evidence. 4. It transpires that thereafter defendants-petitioners filed an application on 01.06.2006 for appointment of survey knowing 2 Pleading Commissioner for scientific measurement of the spot, including the suit land. The learned court below considered the mater in detail and found that there were more than one plot involved in the suit and the plaintiffs had admitted in paragraph-13 of the plaint that amalgamation of the plots was made by defendant 1st party with the lands not in suit. However, no issue on the point of amalgamation of any area of the suit plot with any other land had been made nor any such effort was made by the defendants and they also failed to explain that which of the issue was to be elucidated by the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner and accordingly the aforesaid application was rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order. 5. The law is well settled with respect to the said matter, as Pleader Commissioner can be appointed by a Court under the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure only, if it deems that a local investigation is required for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute but no Pleader Commissioner should be appointed merely to enable any of the parties to collect evidence for the said party, as pleadings of the parties have to be proved by the parties themselves by their respective evidence either oral or documentary. Furthermore, any of the parties cannot force the Court to appoint a Pleader Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose, if the Court itself does not feel it necessary for elucidating any matter in dispute. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court 3 does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )