The legal issue in this case revolves around whether a court has the authority to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection of a property prior to the filing of a written statement by the defendant. The court examined the provisions of Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the appointment of a Commissioner to elucidate matters in dispute, to ascertain market value, or to determine damages or profits.

The court clarified that the phrase "any matter in dispute" is broad and not limited to issues that have been formally raised through pleadings. It emphasized that the appointment of a Commissioner is a procedural tool that can be utilized at any stage of the litigation, even before the defendant files a written statement, if the circumstances warrant it (!) (!) (!) .

The court also noted that the purpose of appointing a Commissioner is to aid in understanding or elucidating facts relevant to the case, and that such reports are admissible as evidence. It reinforced that the power to appoint a Commissioner is not restricted by the timing of the filing of pleadings, and that urgent circumstances may justify such appointment at an early stage of proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court referred to prior jurisprudence to support the view that denying the appointment of a Commissioner before the filing of a written statement could result in injustice, especially in urgent situations where immediate fact-finding is necessary. Thus, the court upheld the lower court’s decision to appoint a Commissioner, dismissing the writ petition challenging that order (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the court held that the power to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection is broad and flexible, and can be exercised at any stage of the suit, including before the defendant files a written statement, if the circumstances justify such action. The decision of the lower court was therefore affirmed, and the writ petition was dismissed.