IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.573 of 2025 Sukadev Parial @ Sukadev Padhial …. Petitioner Mr. T.K.Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Basantimani Naik and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.Dash, Advocate for O.P.No.1 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 09.05.2025 02. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party No.1. 2. Notices vis-à-vis opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are dispensed with as the same is not necessary. 3. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 18th March, 2025 passed in C.S. No. 10 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Udala, whereby, an application for appointment of pleader Commissioner has been denied on the grounds stated therein. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order at Annexure-5 is not legally tenable since such an appointment of Pleader Commissioner has been declined on the ground that the same would amount to res judicata as earlier requests have been refused and in collection of evidence, which is an erroneous conclusion. With such submission Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that if the Court is not inclined to intervene at present, a direction should be issued to the learned court below to consider such a plea at the time of hearing and final disposal of the suit. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 vehemently opposed the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the suit is for eviction and there is no need to ascertain existence of any residential house over the suit schedule property and rightly, therefore, learned court below declined the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner as per Annexure-5. 5. In view of the liberty granted by this Court in CMP No. 497 of 2024, the petitioner moved the learned court below for deputation of a Pleader Commissioner upon closure of evidence later to which the request was rejected and upon receiving objection as per Annexure-4, it has led to the passing of the impugned order dated 18th March, 2025 i.e. Annexure-5. 6. The conclusion of the learned court below that any such decision towards appointment of a Commission would be res judicata is no doubt erroneous. Since evidence from both the sides have been received by learned court below and the suit is pending at the stage of argument, considering the nature of the suit and relief sought for therein, the Court is of the conclusion that the learned court below did not commit any error or illegality denying such appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and at the same time, it is unnecessary. In other words, the impugned order dated 18th March, 2025 at Annexure-5 does not suffer from any infirmity. In other words, considering the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to direct learned court below to once again consider any such appointment of Commissioner at the stage of argument particularly for the reason that the suit is one for eviction. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, CMP stands dismissed, however, it is directed that learned court below shall not be influenced with any of the findings rendered and observations made while dealing with the application vis-à-vis appointment of the Pleader Commissioner at the time of disposal of the suit. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita