JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under the order dated 07.09.2017 passed in Title Suit No.117 of 2008 by which a petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected whereby and where under the relief has been sought for by the plaintiff to appoint Pleader Commissioner to submit its report after demarcation of the suit property in the ends of justice. 2. It is the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 23.09.2008 for decree for directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed pertaining to the landed property situated in Mouza Sonari, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, area measuring 32' X 45' approximately of land and house property consisting of 5 Kharaposh rooms bing Tisco's holding No.96, A-Block, Sonari bounded by:- North : Gally then Holding No.97; South : Gally the Holding No.94; 3. The defendants, after calling upon by the trial Court, have filed written statements wherein it has been pleaded that being the suit property situated over there, a petition under Order XXVI Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. has been filed, which having been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2017, this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter has submitted that the trial Court ought to have exercised the aforesaid power keeping the fact into consideration that the same will lead to proper adjudication of the issue but assigning the reason therein that the suit is of the year 2008 and for the purpose of collecting evidence Pleader Commissioner cannot be appointed, the said reason is not justified therefore interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required. 5. 5. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the impugned order has found that the petitioner has filed the petition under Order XXVI Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. which confers power upon the Court to issue commission for the examination of interrogatories of otherwise of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction, the said Commissioner can be appointed by the court either of its own motion or on the application, supported by affidavit or otherwise, of any party to the suitor of the witness to be examined. 6. The question herein is to be examined by this Court that in case of rebuttal having been made by the defendants of the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint can the trial Court exercise the power of appointing Commission so that the stand which has been taken by the defendants of the plaintiff either in the plaint or in the written statement can be disproved or proved by appointing Pleader Commissioner. 7. It is the position of law that if a party is approaching to the Court, onus is upon the said party to prove its own case without any aid of the Court. 8. The purpose of Order XXVI Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. is not to extend any benefit of collecting evidence for proving/disproving the stand taken either in the plaint or in the written statement otherwise it will be said that the Court has become party to the proceeding. 9. It is always discretion lies to the Court to appoint Pleader Commissioner depending upon the situation but not in a situation where any rebuttal has been given in the written statement as the fact of the case herein is and the pleading made by the plaintiff in the plaint rather it is the onus upon the plaintiff/petitioner to prove its own case. 10. 10. Here, in the instant case, it is the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 23.09.2008 and the specific plea has been taken in the written statement by the defendants that no such landed property is there, therefore, the direction has been sought for from the trial court to appoint Pleader Commissioner in order to ascertain the case, the same cannot be said to be the spirit and intent of the provision of Order XXVI Rule 1 & 2 rather it is the onus upon the plaintiff to disprove the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement by leading evidence. 11. In view thereof and in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the trial Court while rejecting the petition under Order XXVI Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. has committed no error warranting any interference of this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.