IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19930 of 2011 Ramji Bind & Anr Versus Diwan Lukman Khan & Ors ---------------------------------- 03. 23.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.08.2011 passed in title suit No.120 of 2010 by Subordinate Judge Ist, Kaimur at Bhabhua whereby the Court below rejected an application under Order 26 Rule 9 filed by the petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the same suit property, another title suit has been filed by the respondent No.1 to 7 in which Pleader Commissioner has been appointed and the learned Court below by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that all defendants have not yet appeared. At the time of hearing of this application, petitioner produced the plaint. It appears that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the suit property is used by the public in general and the respondents have got no - 2 - title or possession over the same. As stated by the Court below in the impugned order, all the defendants have not yet appeared and, therefore, in my opinion, this is not the stage for appointment of Pleader Commissioner and moreover, the Pleader Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting the evidence on behalf of the parties. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no jurisdictional error committed by the Court below and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)