R.N. Verma, J.

The plaintiff has preferred this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 13.04.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bokaro in Title Suit No. 47 of 2007, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Pleader Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the 'Code') has been rejected.

2. At the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner, a suit was filed for a decree of specific performance of contract and for confirmation of possession over the suit land and further for a direction to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of the property as mentioned in the schedule at the foot of the plaint after taking balance consideration amount.

3. The pleading of the plaintiff is that the property, in question, bearing C.S. Plot no. 827 and 828 measuring 23 decimals, situated in Mouza Kaliadag within P.S. Chandankiary belongs to the defendant no.1, who had acquired the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.12.1987 and 28.06.2002. The said defendant no.1 offered to sale the above land to the father of the plaintiff on total consideration amount of Rs. 52,000/- which was accepted by the father of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 took advance of Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to execute sale deed after receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs. 22,000/-. Accordingly, unregistered deed of agreement incorporating the terms and condition to sell was executed. After taking advance money, possession was also delivered to the plaintiff and since then plaintiff has been coming in possession.

4. In May, 2007, defendant no.2 disclosed the fact in the village that he has purchased the suit property from defendant no.1 and after inquiry plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 on 11.08.2005 in respect of the suit property. But inspite of execution of sale deed in favour of defendant no.2, plaintiff has been continuing in possession of the suit land. Since the sale deed was executed in breach of agreement, the present suit was filed with the relief as indicated above.

5. After appearance, the defendant no.1 the present respondent no.1 filed the written statement completely denying the execution of any unregistered deed of agreement in favour of the plaintiff and handing over of the possession of suit property pursuant to the agreement.

It is not necessary to discuss the entire pleading of the defendant-respondent no.1.

6. It appears from the record that after closure of witnesses of both the parties, the case was fixed for final argument. After completion of the defendant's argument, the suit was posted for argument on behalf of the plaintiff. During the course of argument, plaintiff field a petition under Order 26 Rule 9 read with section 151 of the Code. The court below after hearing both the parties passed the order impugned rejected the prayer for appointment of Pleader Commissioner holding that allowing the petition would amount to collecting evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at this belated stage. Hence, this writ application.

7. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned, as bad in law, seriously contended that from bare perusal of Order-26 Rule-9 of the Code it would appear that Pleader Commissioner can be appointed at any stage of the suit, but the court below without considering the provisions of law erred in rejecting the said petition merely on the ground that at this belated stage such petition cannot be allowed. It was also submitted that the court below also erred in not considering the issue no. 9 which relates to the dispute concerning the possession or ascertaining the status of the land, as such local investigation was essential for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. In support of his contention, learned