IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21565 of 2011 Mahammad Ali Versus Bibi Asma Khatoon ---------------------------------- 02. 08.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff has filed this application against the order dated 14.09.2011 passed in title suit No.167 of 2009 / 4 of 2011 by Sub Judge VIth Aurangabad whereby the learned Court below rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the boundary mentioned in the Baimoquasa deed is wrong and, therefore, for the verification of the same, he prayed for appointment of Pleader Commissioner which has been wrongly rejected by the Court below. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the suit has been filed for declaration that the Baimoquasa deed executed by Md. Hasim, i.e., father of the plaintiff is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. On the other hand, according to the defendant, the Baimoquasa deed has been rightly executed by the father of the plaintiff, namely, Md. Hasim in her favour and, therefore, the learned Court below observed that for collection of evidence for one party or the other, the Pleader Commissioner cannot be appointed. I do not find any illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)