IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.261 of 2007 1. SRI SRI 108 KALI MAHARANI JEEOF MOUZA SAIDPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR DISTRICT BHAGALPUR THROUGH DIPNARAYAN MANDAL SON OF LATE KASHI MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & TOLA GARIYARI, P.S. GOPAPUR DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 2. DIPNARAYAN MANDAL SON OF LATE KASHI MANDAL BEING THE SHEBAIT AND MANAGER OF THE DEITY OF VILLAGE, TOLA GORIYARI, P.S. GOPALPUR, SUBDIVISION NAUGACHIA DISTRICT BHAGALPUR--- PLAINTIFFS- PETITIONERS Versus 1. SRI SRI 108 BISAHRI ASTHAN AND JANTA PUSTAKALAYA SAIDPUR GORIYARI P.S. GOPALPUR, SUB-DIVISION NAUGACHIA DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 2. SUKHNANDAN SINGH SON OF LATE BALDEVI SINGH 3. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE GOLTU SINGH 4. RADHA RAMAN SINGH SON OF LATE JAGO SINGH 5. JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH SON OF LATE MADAN PRASAD SINGH 6. CHHOTELAL SINGH SON OF LATE JUGAL SINGH 7. KAILASH SINGH SON OF LATE THITHAR SINGH 8. BASUDEO SINGH SON OF MAHABIR SINGH 9. GANESH SINGH SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH 10. NEVI SINGH SON OF LATE VAGWAN SINGH NO.2 TO 10 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR, TOLA GORYARI P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR----DEFENDANT IST PARTY-OPPOSITE PARTY-FIRST PARTY 11. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF LATE TANIK LAL KUMAR 12. NIRANJAN KUMAR 13. ARBIND KUMAR SON OF LATE NARAYAN KUMAR 14. SRI NILESH KUMAR SON OF SRI RAMANDAN KUMAR ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR DISTRICT BHAGALPUR----DEFENDANT 2ND PARTY-OPPOSITE PARTY SECOND PARTY 15. MAHENDRA MANDAL SOND OF LATE NEVA MANDAL 16. LAXMAN MANDAL SOND OF LATE KASHI MANDAL 17. SONE LAL MANDAL SON OF LATE KOKAI MANDAL 18. JITAN PASWAN SON OF LATE SHIPAHI PASWAN 19. PANCHU RAJAK SON OF LATE BANKHU RAJAK 20. RAMDEV MANDAL SON OF LATE AETBARI MANDAL 21. PURAN MANDAL SON OF LATE GAINU MANDAL 22. NARESH MANDAL SON OF LATE KISUN MANDAL 15 TO 22 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR TOLA GORIYARI, P.S. GOAPLPUR SUBDIVISION NAUGACHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR----PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTY- 3RD PARTIES ----------- - 2 - For the petitioner:- None For the Opposite party:- None 2 09.07.2009 This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners challenging order dated 13.01.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge,II Naugachia, Bhagalpur rejected their petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as to the Code for the sake of brevity) for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner to submit his report regarding the position of the suit land for its inspection, which is the subject matter of Title Suit No. 47 of 2001. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration of title of plaintiff No.1 and non-title of the defendants challenging the sale-deed executed by defendants second party in favour of the defendants first party and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It transpires that after about six years of the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application in the Court below under the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code as mentioned above which has been rejected by the learned Court below vide the impugned order. Provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code is very clear in that regard and it is the discretion of the Court to pass order under the said provision if it deems that a local investigation is required and is proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. 4. The said provision is not meant to provide an opportunity to any party to the suit to collect evidence through process - 3 - of the Court. Furthermore, the learned Court below has itself found that there was no occasion or reason to appoint a pleader Commissioner for the said purpose. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned Court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. (S.N.Hussain,J.) A.Kumar