IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1183 of 2008 DAYA NAND GIRI @ DAYANAND GOSWAMI Versus BIBI KHADIYA BANO ----------- 2 19.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order confirming the report of the Pleader Commissioner, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that it was mandatory for the Court to hear the petitioner, the defendant in the suit before confirming the report of Pleader Commissioner has no exception in law but then the question would be if the petitioner himself was not present, the day on which the plaintiff was heard and the report was confirmed, the petitioner has to blame to himself and none else. The further reliance placed by the petitioner on the provision of Order 26 Rule 10(2) is also wholly misconceived because that only lays down the manner in which the report of the Pleader Commissioner has to be taken on record and his evidence is to be recorded. There is no dispute that the Pleader Commissioner was already examined earlier and his deposition was recorded and thereafter the Court has gone to consider the report of the Pleader Commissioner for its being confirmed. There - 2 - also the Court below had made it clear that the report of the Pleader Commissioner was only valid to the extent as has been brought in the evidence. That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit must be and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir kumar Jha, J.)