Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is a discretionary act by the Trial Court and must be exercised judiciously. It should not be used primarily as a means to collect evidence, especially before issues are framed or evidence is recorded (!) (!) .

2. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of appointing a Court Commissioner is to assist in understanding the factual position of the property, such as providing maps or reports related to divisions and boundaries, rather than gathering evidence to prove contentious issues (!) .

3. The Court's role is to ensure that such discretionary powers are exercised properly, avoiding misuse for evidence collection, which can amount to overstepping jurisdiction. The decision to appoint a Court Commissioner should be based on necessity and relevance, not as a shortcut to evidence gathering (!) (!) .

4. The Court found that in the case at hand, the order did not lead to the collection of evidence or delve into contentious issues, and the appointment was for factual clarification, which fell within the Court’s discretion. Therefore, interference was unwarranted (!) .

5. The Court highlighted that interference with such discretionary orders is only justified when a clear case of grave injustice or violation of principles of natural justice is demonstrated. Mere disagreement with the order or the possibility of alternative evidence does not warrant setting aside the order (!) .

6. The Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or preventing grave injustices, not to re-evaluate factual findings or substitute its judgment for that of the Trial Court (!) (!) .

7. The Court clarified that errors of law which are apparent on the face of the record can be corrected through judicial review, but mere errors of fact or findings based on evidence cannot be challenged unless there is a manifest legal flaw (!) .

8. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising judicial restraint, intervening only when there is a clear, manifest error that causes grave injustice, and recognizing that the discretion to interfere should be guided by principles of justice and fairness (!) .

9. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the interlocutory order, affirming that the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion was proper and that the order did not warrant interference (!) .

These points collectively reaffirm that the appointment of a Court Commissioner is a discretionary judicial act that must be exercised carefully and for appropriate purposes, primarily to clarify factual aspects rather than to gather evidence, and that courts should exercise supervisory jurisdiction sparingly and only in cases of clear jurisdictional errors or grave injustice.