IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.243 of 2007 ---- Purushottam Prasad son of late Balgovind Ram, Resident of Mohalla –Gol Bagicha, P.S. Kotwali, District- Gaya. -- Defendant-Petitioner. Versus Brahmdeo Prasad son of Late Jawahar Ram, Resident of Mohalla- Hat Godown, P.S. Kotwali, District-Gaya. -- Plaintiff- Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : None For the opposite party : None ---- 02. 08.07.2009 This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 20.11.2006 by which the learned Munsif I, Gaya, rejected his petition under Order XXVI Rules 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a pleader commissioner in Eviction Suit No.32 of 1997 for verifying the plaintiff’s claim of personal necessity. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and the same is pending since 12 years. It also transpires that the evidence of the plaintiff has been completed and closed much earlier, whereafter the defendants had to lead his evidence, but he has been delaying the same on one ground or the other and when vide order dated 22.09.2006 he was directed to produce his evidence on the next date failing which his evidence will be closed, he filed the aforesaid petition on 13.10.2006 under the provision of Order XXVI Rules 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the provisions of the aforesaid rules of Order XXVI, it is quite apparent that only if the court is satisfied that there is any - 2 - necessity for appointment of pleader commissioner it can pass such order. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that there was no occasion at all to appoint a pleader commissioner in that regard as it was for the defendants to prove that the plaintiff had no bonafide personal requirement. The defendant cannot be allowed to use the said provision of law for collecting evidence. It further transpires that the defendant is merely trying to delay the already 12 years old eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity due to which his prayer cannot be allowed at this stage. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the suit without any further delay and without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties and the suit must be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)