IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 300 of 2007 Ravindra Jha @ Ravindra Nath Jha, S/o Namonath Jha, resident of village Shihorawa, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District West Champaran. …………………………Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Sri Nath Jha, S/o Late Kashi Nath Jha, resident of village Sihorawa, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District West Champaran. ………………….…..Plaintiff -Opposite Party 1st set 2. Namonath Jha, S/o Robban Jha 3. Raj Kumar Jha @ Kumar Jha 4. Chandra Shekhar Jha 5. Budhu Jha, All S/o Namnath Jha, resident of village Sihorawa, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District West Champaran. ……Defendants-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioner : M/s Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate and Bal Gobind Sharma, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 12.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, East Champaran rejected his petition dated 06.11.2006 for appointment of Pleader Commissioner for ascertaining as to whether a Pakka house of the plaintiff was standing on plot no.575 in Title Suit No.10 of 1998. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and filed their pleadings whereafter issues were framed, evidence of both the parties were led and were subsequently closed. 2 However, when the case was fixed for final arguments the said petition was filed by the defendant-petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner and the same was rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2006. After hearing the arguments and perusing the materials on record, including the impugned order it transpires that apart from being much belated the said petition filed by the defendant- petitioner could not have been allowed also on the ground that the appointment of Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used by any party for collecting evidence rather it was for the trial court to pass an appropriate order in that regard if it finds that local investigation was required for the purposes of elucidating any matter in dispute. Here, in the instant case, the learned court below appears to be quite justified that no step was required to be taken under the aforesaid provision of law and the suit has to be decided on the pleadings and evidence of the parties already adduced. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)