IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.149 of 2007 Smt. Chandra Kanta Devi, Wife of Shri Sheetal Singh, resident of Rajendra Path (Station Road) P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Patna G.P.O., Patna -1 within the town of Patna District – Patna. .. Defendant 1st Party/Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Kameshwar Prasad, Son of Late Julumdhari Prasad 2. Smt. Shiya Devi, Wife of Shri Kameshwar Prasad Both residents of Mohalla Goriatoli, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O., Patna-1, within the twon of Patna District – Patna by profession business Man and cultivator ..Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties. 3. Pradeep Kumar Mitra, Son of Late Sanhesh Chandra Mitra 4. Sandeep Kumar Mitra, Son of Late Sanhesh Chandra Mitra Both residents of Mohalla Makhania Kuan Road, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, within the town of Patna, District – Patna as attorney holding power under a registered deed of attorney dated 4.1.1993. …Defendant 3rd Party/Opposite Party. 5. Ramadheen Prasad @ Ramdheen Mistry, Son of late Babu Lal Mistry, resident of Mohalla Postal Park, Chiraiyatarn, P.S. Kankarbagh, P.O. G.P.O., within the town of Patna, District – Patna 6. Surendra Prasad, Son of Shri Binda Raut, resident of village Smraut, P.S. Sherghati, District – Gaya . ..Defendants 4th Party/Opposite Parties. 7. Abdul Shahid, Son of Late Abdul Sattar 8. Abdul Shabir, Son of Late Abdul Sattar Both residents of Rajendra Path, P.S. Gandhi Maidand, District – Patna. 9. Deo Lal Raid, Son of late Nand Lal Raid, resident of Mohalla Chiraiyatarh, High School Gali, P.S. Kankarbagh, District – Patna. …. Defendants 5th Party/Opposite Parties. 10. Shri Sheetal Singh, Son of Kedar Singh, resident of Rajendra Path (Station Road) P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. G.P.O., Patna -1, within the town of Patna, District – Patna. ….Defendant 1st Party/Opposite Party. 11. Shri Brijraj Singh, Son of Late Sheonandan Singh, resident of Rajendra Path, Station Road near officer of the Controller of Defence Accounts, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Patna G.P.O. Patna -1, within the town of Patna, District – Patna. ..Defendant 2nd Party/Opposite Party. For the Petitioner : - Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, Advocate. ----------- 02/ 24.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- - 2 - petitioner challenging order dated 22.11.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Jude IV, Patna refused to review/recall his order dated 24.5.2005 passed in Title Suit No. 86 of 1997. 3. This civil revision arises out of a 12 years old title suit which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for demarcation of the suit land and for fixing boundaries from four sides and perpetual injunction against defendants for the suit land fully detailed in schedule I of the plaint. In the said suit after completion of the pleadings, issues were framed and the plaintiffs adduced their evidence, whereafter it was closed much earlier and since then it is pending for the defendants to adduce their evidence. 4. It transpires that only thereafter a petition dated 3.12.2004 was filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner to hold local inspection and to submit report in respect of the points mentioned in the petition including the disputed question of fact with regard to physical possession of the plaintiffs after their purchase vide registered sale deeds dated 23.2.1996 and 12.10.1996. The said petition was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 24.5.2005. 5. Thereafter defendant-petitioner filed a petition dated 14.11.2005 for review/recall of the aforesaid order dated 24.5.2005. The said review petition has been dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 22.11.2006 which has been challenged in this civil revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a - 3 - copy of order dated 24.5.2005, a perusal of which shows that the learned court below has considered the respective claims of the parties as well as the materials on record and had found that the defendant- petitioner wants Pleader Commissioner to be appointed only to verify the truthfulness of the statements of witnesses of the plaintiffs. The law is well settled in this regard that the defendants have to disprove the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs by their own pleadings and evidence and the court cannot appoint a Pleader Commissioner for collecting the evidence against the plaintiffs in favour of and at the instances of the defendants. 7. The provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9, 10 and 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure are very specific in that regard and only if the court is satisfied that a Pleader Commissioner is required for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute it can pass an order in that regard. But in the instant case, the learned court below after considering the every aspect of the matter was of a definite opinion that no such Pleader Commissioner was required for elucidating any matter in dispute and it was defendants, who had to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs on the basis of pleadings and evidence. 8. From the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 it is quite apparent that the learned court below has again considered the matter in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant- petitioner had failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record or to produce any material which was not earlier available with the defendants nor there was any other reason for the court to - 4 - review/recall its earlier order dated 24.5.2005. 9. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error in the same. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 10. Since the matter is about 12 years old, the learned court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit without giving any undue adjournments to any of the parties. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)