1. Revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in OS 11 of 1985 of the Sub-Court, Shertallai challenges the order in IA 446 of 1985. Second defendant (respondent herein) filed the petition for taking out a commission for local inspection. The learned Sub Judge allowed the petition.

2. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the trial Court erred in allowing the commission application overlooking the fact that the defendants have not filed written statement. The short question that has to be decided in the CRP is as to whether the Court can issue a commission before filing the written statement by the defendants. Contention of the plaintiff is that defendants have not filed written statement and so the defences available to them were not before the Court and that being the position there was nothing to be elucidated by deputing a commission.

3. 0.26 R.9 CPC enables the Court to depute a commission for local investigation whenever it considers that it is necessary for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market-value of any property or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits. The contention of the plaintiff is th