ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is aggrieved by an order dated 24.08.2012 passed by learned Sub-Judge 6th, Samastipur in Title Suit No. 172 of 2007 whereby a petition filed by the plaintiffs dated 19.05.2011 for appointment of Pleader Commissioner has been allowed. 3. The petitioner is the defendant before the court below. The suit has been filed by respondents 1st set for declaring a sale deed dated 10.08.2007 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 as collusive, invalid and fraudulent. The only grievance, which the petitioner has in the present application, is against appointment of Pleader Commissioner based on the plea that the sole purpose of such appointment is to create evidence in favour of the plaintiffs. The contention is, that in view of relief sought for in the plaint, such appointment of Pleader Commissioner was not at all required. The parties were required to prove their case on the basis of the respective evidence adduced by them. There is no such dispute between the parties, which could not be ascertained by the court by way of evidence without appointment of Pleader Commissioner. He further submits that application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner was filed after closure of evidence between the parties which ought not to have been entertained, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgement of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 2000 Calcutta 91 (Vessel M.V. “Baltic Confidence” v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.) to contend that the court should not have appointed a Pleader Commissioner for collecting evidence. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “12. The suit filed by the plaintiff was a suit for damages. It, therefore, was required to prove its own claim by adducing independent evidence. The Court had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for the purpose of collecting evidence and more so by assessing the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff. Such a judicial function, in our opinion, cannot be delegated. It is open for the plaintiff to appoint his own surveyor and get the damages assessed and prove his report in the suit. A Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence in respect of the alleged damaged goods which are in custody of the plaintiff. Such a judicial function, in our opinion, cannot be delegated. It is open for the plaintiff to appoint his own surveyor and get the damages assessed and prove his report in the suit. A Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence in respect of the alleged damaged goods which are in custody of the plaintiff. Such evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be permitted to be collected in a suit for damages at the instance of a party.” 4. In my view, the moot question involved in the present case is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to interfere with such order appointing a Pleader Commissioner. 5. In my opinion, as per Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court has the jurisdiction to order for local inspection for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Such power, unless exercised arbitrarily, cannot be interfered with in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. From the impugned order, it will appear that the court below directed for appointment of Pleader Commissioner not for ascertaining the actual possession of the suit property rather to ascertain the actual physical “position” of the suit land. It cannot be said that the purpose of appointment of Pleader Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is for collecting evidence for the benefit of a party. 7. The reliance placed upon the judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Vessel M.V. “Baltic Confidence” (Supra) will not apply in the present case inasmuch as in that case in a suit for damages, the trial court had appointed a receiver for the purpose of assessing the damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff of that case. 8. In such circumstance, the court had held that such judicial function would not be delegated to Receiver/ Commissioner. In such view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.