IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1022 of 2008 RAJO DEVI Versus SAVITRI DEVI & ANR ----------- 2 18.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party. The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order refusing to appoint a Pleader Commissioner, is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the scope of Order 26 Rule 9 is very limited and does not give a right to a party to claim appointment of Pleader Commissioner as a matter of right. Mr. Shyam Sunder Sinha Shyam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner then submits that actually the application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner was filed before the Court below by the petitioner with a view that such report of the Pleader Commissioner could have assisted the Court in quantifying the amount of damage to be fixed pursuant its observations/directions as with regard to demolition/removal of construction /structure. This Court fails to understand as to how the petitioner is expecting the Court to help - 2 - in getting his claim of damages established and/or quantified. It is always open for the petitioner himself to lead his evidence for establishing the claim of his damage. The counsel for the opposite party at this stage submits that this order should not be construed to mean that the direction of the Court below directing the petitioner for removal of the construction/structure would be kept hanging in balance till the petitioner adduces some evidence in this regard. In the opinion of this Court such apprehension of the opposite party is wholly misconceived but then this much is clarified by this Court that any order of the Court below with regard to removal of structure must be given effect to without awaiting for the petitioner to press his claim of damages. Be that it may, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and accordingly this Civil Revision application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)