JUDGMENT : The present petition has been filed “against the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the learned Munsif Ist, Munger in Eviction Suit No. 12/2017 (CIS No. 12/2017) (Neeraj Kumar Agrawal and another vs. Tabarak Khan) by which the learned Munsif Ist, Munger has been pleased to allow the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for appointment of the pleader commissioner.” 2. The defendant/petitioner is said to have been the tenant of the landlords Premranjan Kumar Singh and Anuranjan Kumar Singh. When the defendant/petitioner refused to agree for enhancement of rent and to vacate the premises, the landlords sold the property to the plaintiffs/respondents through two separate sale deeds both dated 3.12.2001, who then brought Eviction Suit No. 12/2017 against the defendant/petitioner. 3. The defendant/petitioner filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an application for appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner on the ground that the defendant/petitioner was changing the physical features of the suit property by making new construction and boundary wall. A prayer was therefore made for a report to be called with respect to the present status of the suit property. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner submits that the learned court below has erred in allowing the prayer of the plaintiffs/respondents as they cannot be permitted to collect evidence by recourse to appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. The learned court below has opined that if a decree is ultimately passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, the same can be executed only against the suit property. However, if the physical features of the suit property undergo a change, then it will be difficult to execute the decree. In such circumstances, the prayer of the plaintiffs/respondents has been found maintainable. 6. In the instant case, it cannot be said that calling for a report of the existing physical features of the suit property by appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner amounts to collection of evidence. As such, this court does not find any illegality or error in the order of the learned court below. The petition stands dismissed.