Order Heard Shri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.K. Sinha, S.C.VI and Shri "Ram Kumar Sharma, counsel for the O.P. 2. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 10.2.1994 passed by the Munsif, Aurangabad in T.S. No.4 of 1994 whereby he passed an order fur appointment of a second Pleader Commissioner for inspection and measurement of the suit land. 3. The plaintiff O.P. filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant petitioner before the munsif, Aurangabad for restraining the defendant petitioner from interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit land, bearing plot nos. 708 and 709. The O.P. plaintiff claimed title over the suit land on the basis of a judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.92 of 1986 in his favour. 4. The plaintiff O.P. also filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 151, C.P.C. for grant of injunction to restrain the petitioner from going over the suit land. 5. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the defendant petitioner appeared and filed show cause Slating that in the Revisional Survey, plot No. 708 was recorded in the name of District Guard, Aurangabad and plot No. 709 was recorded Gairmazarua Aam (Gaddu). After the constitution or the Rafiganj Notified Area Committee, the Notified Area Committee became the absolute owner of the suit land. The Zila Parishad Aurangabad, the predecessor in interest of the Notified Area Committee was not a party in T. S. No. 92/86, therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid Title Suit was not binding on the Notified Area Committee. The defendant petitioner had drawn up a scheme for construction of shops over plot no. 1833 belonging to Rafiganj Notified Area Committee but the O.P. did not like coming up of a new complex of the defendant petitioner near his commercial complex. Ultimately, the plaintiff O.P. filed the suit to delay the coming up of commercial complex of the defendant petitioner. 6. The defendant petitioner appeared and on his prayer, the trial court appointed a Pleader Commissioner for making local inspection and measurement of the suit land. The Pleader Commissioner, after making local inspection and measurement, sub milled his report stating that no construction was being - made on plot nos. 708 and 709, rather the construction was being made on plot no. 1833 belonging to the Notified Area Committee. The Pleader Commissioner, after making local inspection and measurement, sub milled his report stating that no construction was being - made on plot nos. 708 and 709, rather the construction was being made on plot no. 1833 belonging to the Notified Area Committee. The plaintiff O.P. then filed a petition for appointment of a second Pleader Commissioner for the local inspection and remeasurement and the prayer was allowed by the Munsif. 7. Shri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order for appointment of second Pleader Commissioner for the same purpose without setting aside the report of the Pleader Commissioner earlier appointed by the court is a jurisdictional error. He also placed reliance in the case of Swami Premanand Bharthi vs. Swami Yoganand Bharthi (AIR 1985, Ker. 83). 8. Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the defendant O.P. however contended that the impugned order of appointment of Pleader Commissioner is interlocutory in nature and no revision lies against the order. Reliance was also placed in the case of Bijendra Mishra and others vs. Jagdish Mishra and others (1989), PLJR 405). 9. The contention of Shri Sharma is not well founded. Reliance placed by Shri Sharma in the case of Bijendra Mishra (supra) bas no relevance in the present case, as this case stands on a different footing. 10. The case of Swami Premanand Bharthi (Supra) squarely covers the present case. In That case, Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri K. S. Paripoornan, as he then was, speaking for the Bench held that appointment of a second Pleader Commissioner without rejecting the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner earlier appointed by the court is a jurisdietiona1 error. 11. In the instant case, the learned trial court appointed a second Pleader Commissioner for local inspection and remeasurement of the suit land without rejecting t he earlier report submitted by the pleader commissioner in this .regard. The appointment of a second Pleader Commissioner is, therefore a jurisdictional error. 12. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order is bad in law, therefore it cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result, the petition is allowed.