ORDER Heard the learned counsel Mr. Rajnikant Pandey on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel, Mr. Iqbal Asif Neyazi, A.C. to G.P.4 on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by F.T.C. I, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Appeal No.32 of 2007/116 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioners to appoint Pleader Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that to ascertain the position and also the nature of suit property, it is essential that a Pleader Commissioner be appointed but the learned Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law as provided under Order 26 Rule 10 C.P.C. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the prayer on the ground that in fact, the application was filed by the petitioners for appointment of Pleader Commissioner only to prepare a comparable chart as to which old plot, the new plot has been carved out. There was no other prayer in the application. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners filed the application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner to prepare a comparative chart of old khata and old plot with new khata and new plot. The learned Court below observed that this fact has been pleaded by the plaintiff at paragraph 13 of the plaint wherein it is mentioned that R.S. khata no.462, plot no.223 has been carved out from old khata no.256 and old plot no.1239. This fact has been admitted in the written statement by the State of Bihar at paragraph 17. 6. In such view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the fact pleaded by one party has been admitted by the other party. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application. Thus, it is dismissed.