IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12132 of 2011 Deepak Kumar Pandit @ Deepak Kumar Versus Mehroon Khatoon & Ors ----------- 02. 29.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the part of the order dated 10.05.2011 passed by learned Sub Judge III, Katihar in Title Suit No.10 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner to ascertain the physical possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants have disputed the possession of the petitioner and, therefore, it is necessary that the Pleader Commissioner be appointed. It appears that the suit for specific performance of contract has been filed by the petitioner against the defendants-respondents praying for specific performance of the contract dated 18.02.2001. The defendants appeared and disputed the alleged contract. Their case is that Baibayanama is forged and fabricated. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Court below observed that the issue 2 regarding possession is not involved in the suit for the specific performance of contract. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the question to be decided is whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the alleged Mahadnama is genuine. In the present case, respondents are disputing the genuineness of the Mahadnama. So far possession of the petitioner is concerned, it is not in issue. Even if the Pleader Commissioner will find the possession of the petitioner, it will not make any difference in the merit of the suit. In such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and thus, application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)