IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2235 of 2006 1. JUGAL SINGH, S/o Late Gudo Singh …… Defendant No. 1, 2. Janardan Singh, S/o Raja Singh @ Late Rajeshwar Singh …… Defendant No. 2, and 3. Kameshwar Singh @ Kamo Singh, S/o Ramji Singh …… Defendant No. 3, All are residents of Village – Moldiartola, Mokama, P.S. Mokama and District Patna …………………………………... Defendants …. Petitioners Versus 1. UMA SHANKAR PD.SINGH, S/o Late Natho Singh …. Plaintiff No. 1, 2. Indra Dev Singh, S/o Late Natho Singh…… Plaintiff No. 2, 3. Harihar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Natho Singh ….. Plaintiff No. 3, 4. Daya Shankar Singh, S/o Late Natho Singh….. Plaintiff No. 4, All are residents of Village Shankarnagar Tola, Mokama, P.S. Mokama, District - Patna …………………………………….. Plaintiffs ---- Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Parth Sarthy and Mr. Utsav Kumar, Advocates. ------------ 2. 27.08.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The defendants – petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2006 passed by the Sub Judge II, Barh in Title Suit No. 90/2002, whereby he has dismissed the petition filed by the defendants under order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the reasons disclosed in Annexure-1 it was necessary that a Pleader Commissioner should have been appointed by the court concerned. The trial court has held that appointment of a Pleader Commissioner at that point of time, when the 2 issues were to be framed, could amount to collection of evidence in favour of the defendants, which would not be proper in the interest of justice and, thus, rejected such prayer. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 12.09.2006 passed in the Title Suit concerned. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )