ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J.

The petitioner – plaintiff has called into question the order, dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-F) passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srirangapatna, on I.A.No.XIX in O.S. NO.149/2001.

2. In the suit filed by the petitioner for injunction, the respondent No.3 filed I.A.No. XIX invoking Order XXVI, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) seeking the appointment of the Taluk Surveyor as the Court Commissioner for ascertaining as to in which Survey Number the suit schedule property is situated. The Trial Court allowed the said I.A.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sir Mahantesh Hosmath submits that the petitioner has produced as many as 74 clinching documents to show that the suit schedule property is formed out of the lands at Sy. No.291. He submits that even the Gazette Notification has not weighed with the Trial Court. He takes exception to the Trial Court entertaining the application for the appointment of the Court Commissioner at a belated stage, when the matter was set down for argument. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of B.S. Nazir Hassan Khan Vs. Aswathanarayana Rao and Others reported in AIR 2004 Kant. 92, wherein the rejection of an application for the appointment of the Court Commissioner filed at a belated stage, when the case is posted for arguments, is held to be proper.

4. He submits that the parties have to establish their case by adducing independent and cogent evidence. He submits that the appointment of the Court Commissioner for collecting the evidence on behalf of a party is absolutely impermissible. The filing and allowing of the said application is only to harass the petitioner. He apprehends that he would not get justice at the hands of the Taluk Surveyor, who is again an officer of the State Government.

5. Per contra, Smt. Shwetha Anand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 Submits that when the identify of the property is in dispute, the proper course for the Court is to appoint the Commissioner, which has been done in the present case. She submits that according to the petitioner, the suit schedule property is in Sy.No.291, according to the respondent No.3 it is in Sy.No.297 and according to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it is in Sy.No.175.

6. Sri Anjana Murthy, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.4 adopts the submissions urged on behalf of the respondent No.3.

7. The object of local inspection is not so much to collect the evidence, which can be taken in the Court, but to obtain evidence, which from its very peculiar nature can only be had at the spot. If an authority is required for this proposition, it is to be found in the Kerala High Court. Division Bench Judgment in the case of Maroli Achuthan Vs. Kunhipatthumma, reported in AIR 1968 Kerala 28.

8. It is also profitable to refer to this Court’s decision in the case of B. Jagannath Vs. N.C. Narayanappa and Another reported in AIR 1982 Kant. 233, wherein it is held that the appointment of the Court Commissioner for measuring and demarcating the schedule property with a sketch, would arise only after the parties have adduced the evidence. The Madras High Court in the case of Vaithinattar and Another Vs. Sakkubai, Ammal, reported in AIR 2004 Madras 419 has taken the considered view that the best evidence, where the encroachment is not admitted, would be obtained only by appointing the Court Commissioner.

9. It is also profitable to refer to this Court’s judgment in the case of Janab Nizar Ahmed Sheriff Vs. A. Kannan, reported in 1999 (3) Kar.L.J. 359 wherein it is held that if the identify of the property is in dispute, the Court can unilaterally appoint the Court Commissioner: it can even compel the parties to agree to the appointment of the Court Commissioner. The Apex Court in the case of Shreepat Vs. Rajendra Prasad and Others reported in JT 2000 (7) SC 379, has held that if there is a