IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1088 of 2008 DINESHWAR VERMA Versus DIWAKAR PRASAD VERMA ----------- 2 30.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Court below refusing to exercise of its power under Order XXXIX Rule 7 cannot be said to be vitiated on account of any material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error. The Court below has rightly held that when an application of the petitioner seeking injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 had already been rejected earlier and that order on the application of the petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 had also been passed on 25.11.2005, there was no scope for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for holding local inspection and submitting a report in respect of the suit property. This Court in fact, is satisfied that such prayer of the petitioner was actuated by a motive to create evidence by taking recourse to the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 7 of C.P.C. Such prayer of the petitioner was fit to be rejected by the Court below and therefore, when the same has been rejected, the same cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional power under Section - 2 - 115 of C.P.C. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)