IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20858 of 2011 Md.Izhar Rabbani & Ors Versus Dr.Manzarul Hassan ---------------------------------- 03. 09.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Vidyasagar, on behalf of the petitioner. This application has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 26.09.2011 whereby the learned Court below has only directed the petitioner to press the application dated 21.09.2011 filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure after defendants evidence is closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of examination of defendant No.1 as D.W.1, some confusion arose and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file the application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, even if Order 39 Rule 7 is not applicable then under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., the Court below could have appointed the Pleader Commissioner. So far the submissions are concerned, the learned Court below has not expressed his opinion as to whether the Pleader Commissioner will be appointed or not. Only the Court below has directed the - 2 - petitioner to press the application after examination of the witnesses of the defendants. Against that Order, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Order 26 Rule 9 speaks about the jurisdiction of the Court not about the right of the party. Therefore, a party cannot be allowed to dictate the Court and insist to appoint a Pleader Commissioner as and when he wishes. It is for the Court to see as to whether Pleader Commission shall be appointed or not. In this case, the Court below has not passed any order on the application. Therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction, no direction can be given to the Court below as the order is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)