IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.256 of 2008 Ram Pravesh Bhagat son of late Jugal Bhagat Resident of village Chitragoni, P.S. Jamhore, District Auranbagad. ………….Principal Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Most. Jautri Devi widow of late Raghunath Bhagat. 2. Baban Bhagat 3. Lallan Bhagat Both sons of late Raghunath Bhagat 4. Urmila Devi 5. Sushila Devi 6. Pramila Devi 7. Kashmira Devi 8. Mira Devi 4 to 8 are daughters of lat Raghunath Bhagat and all are residents of village Chitragoni, P.S. Jamhore, District Aurangabad.…….Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. 9. Most. Naiki Devi widow of late Jugal Bhagat 10. Kalawati Devi 11. Dewanti Devi 12. Shakuntala Devi 10 to 12 are daughters of late Jugal Bhagat. 13. Shanker Bhagat son of late Nanhak Bhagat 9 to 13 are resident of village Chitragoni, P.S. Jamhore, District Aurangabad. …Principal Defendants-Opposite parties 14. Kanhaiya Bhagat 15. Talkeshwar Bhagat 16. Murari Bhagat 17. Arun Bhagat 14 to 17 are sons of late Yadunath Bhagat. 18. Baijnath Bhagat 19. Harinath Bhagat Both sons of late Sohan Bhagat. 20. Om Prakash Bhagat 21. Jai Prakash Bhagat Both sons of late Ramnath Bhagat 22. Jhalak Mano Devi wife of Thakur Bhagat 23. Jhalo Devi wife of Kailash Bhagat All are residents of village Chitragoni, P.S. Jamhore, District Aurangabad.……..Proforma Defendants-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 11.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 14.01.2008 by which learned Subordinate Judge-II, Aurangabad rejected his application for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner in Title Suit No.171 of 2001(23/2006). 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties 1st set for declaration of their title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and hearing of the case started. 4. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit the defendant-petitioner filed an application in the trial court for appointment for survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for scientific measurement of the suit property. The said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 11.05.2007 which was not challenged by the defendant-petitioner. 5. It further transpires that only four months thereafter the defendant-petitioner again filed a similar application in the trial court for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner on the ground that earlier while rejecting his application the trial court had observed that defendants 1st party first adduce their evidence and if there shall be any necessity for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, it shall be considered only after adducing evidence by the defendants. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 14.01.2008 against which 3 the instant civil revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below, but it is apparent from the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below that no doubt the trial court had observed in its earlier order dated 11.05.2007 that if there shall be any necessity, survey knowing Pleader Commissioner would be appointed but now the trial court is satisfied from the evidences already adduced in the suit and there remains no need for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. Furthermore no such Pleader Commissioner can be legally appointed to merely prove the defendants’ claim of possession on any portion of the suit land or to fill up the lacuna in their evidence. The law is very clear in this regard that survey knowing Pleader Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purposes of collecting evidence in support of any of the parties, rather survey knowing Pleader Commissioner can be appointed only when it is required by the court under the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )