Patna High Court
Lekha Yadav And Ors vs Krishana Ballabh Prasad Sharma And Ors on 31 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2062 of 2017
======================================================
1. Lekha Yadav, Son of Late Dhondha Yadav,
2. Tarkeshwar Yadav, Son of Lekha Yadav,
3. Beni Yadav, Son of Lekha Yadav, All Resident of Village- Taridih Bhagalpur,
P.S.- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Krishana Ballabh Prasad Sharma, Son of Late Jangi Prasad Singh,
2. Manoj Kumar, Son of Krishna Ballabh Prasad Sharma.
3. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Krishna Ballabh Prasad Sharma.
4. Smt. Sangeeta Kumari, Wife of Sanjay Kumar
No. 6 to 9 R/o J.P.S. Inclave Newari House Prithvishil Market, Kadampura,
Patna-3, District- Patna.
5. Rajeev Nandan, Son of Bir Mani Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Red House
Compound, P.S. Rampur, District- Gaya.
6. Smt. Anita Kumari, Wife of Bhola Bhai, Both R/o Mohalla- Nutan Nagar,
Beldari Tola, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
7. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Pramod Singh, R/o Village- Kendui, P.S.-
Magadh Medical College, Gaya, District- Gaya.
8. Smt. Madhuri Devi, Wife of Dr. Triveni Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Sagar Path
Nutan Nagar, Gaya, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
9. Smt. Krishna Devi, Wife of Vinay Kumar, R/o Village- Sagarpur, P.S.
Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
10. Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Son of Nageshwar Yadav, R/o Village- Neema
Tola, Din Dayal Nagar, P.S. M.M.C.H. Gaya.
11. Abhishek Ray, Son of Roy Madan Krishor, R/o 258, Platinum Inclave
Section 18 Pocket-1, Rohini, P.S.- Badali, New Delhi.
12. Pramod Kumar, Son of Awadhesh Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Barki, P.S.- Delha,
District- Gaya, Power of Attorney holder on behalf of Krishna Prasad and
Jagdish Prasad Son of Late Chamari Kahar, R/o Village- Mastipur, R.S.-
Bodh -Gaya, District- Gaya, Vide register deed no. 428, dated 15.05.2010.
13. Arun Singh, Son of Jagdish Singh, R/o Village- New Taridin, P.S. Bodh-
Gaya, District- Gaya a power of Attorney holder of Most Bhagwati Devi
Wife of Late Raghu Singh and daughter of Late Chamari Kahar vide register
deed no. 897 dated 21.06.2011.
14. Uday Kumar, Son of Sri Dwarika Prasad R/o village and P.O.- Paibigha,
P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
15. Sanjay Yadav, Son of Tarkeshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Bhagalpur,
P.S.- Bodh-Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2062 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
2/3
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend
to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
01.11.2017
passed by the learned Sub Judge-1, Gaya in Title
Suit No. 45 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the application
filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner as
the application was filed by the petitioners, who are defendants
before the learned trial court, for appointment of Pleader
Commissioner to ascertain the possession of the suit property as
both the parties claim possession.
4. I think the claim of the petitioners is not
sustainable for the simple reason that the duty of Pleader
Commissioner is not to collect the evidence on behalf of the
parties. In the case of Padam Sen and Another Vs. The State of
U.P. reported in AIR 1961 SC 218, the three Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the business of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2062 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
Court to collect evidence in favour of one party.
5. Further, if the learned trial court has taken into
consideration this fact and held that title and possession are to
be decided by the court on the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties and the court cannot depute a Pleader Commissioner to
make local inspection of the suit land and to submit a report as
to who is in possession of the suit land.
6. In the light of discussion made here-in-above, I
have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial court has not
committed any illegality or irregularity and there appears no
error of jurisdiction so as to interfere with the impugned order
and hence, the impugned order dated 01.11.2017 is affirmed.
7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
