- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners in this writ application, have challenged the order of the Sub-Judge-I, Dhanbad passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 2005, whereby the learned court below had allowed the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent for appointment of Pleader Commissioner under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.
(3.) It appears that earlier, this issue was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2005 whereby, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court had set aside the order of appointment of the Pleader Commissioner. However, upon an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent for review of the order dated 16.11.2005, an interim order was passed by this Court not only staying the further proceedings of the Title Suit before the court below, but for maintaining the status quo. As it appears from the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the main plea taken by the petitioners is that the question of appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and that too, for the purpose of collecting materials for hearing an interlocutory application for grant of injunction, is totally illegal and contrary to law, even as envisaged under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC.;