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 w