The appointment of a Second Commissioner for local investigation did not adjudicate any rights or obligations of the parties, and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable.

1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09th June, 1992, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City, by which the learned Munsiff allowed the application under Order 26, Rule 9 C.P.C. and appointed the Second Commissioner to make the local investigation, as in the report of the Commissioner appointed earlier, proper site-plan was not prepared and necessary particulars were not given.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier report necessary particulars and details were given by the petitioner, and, there was no necessity to appoint Second Commissioner. He has produced before me the report of Commissioner submitted before the trial Court. Certified copy of the report produced before me is not the first report of the Commissioner but it is the second report which has been submitted by the Commissioner who was appointed in pursuance to the order dated 09th June 1992. Since the Commissioner has already submitted his report after local investigation, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has become in fructuous. Even otherwise order dated 09th June 1992 passed by the learned trial Court appointing the Commissioner does not adjudicate any right or obligations of the parties on the controversy, and, therefore, order cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C. and as such the revision petition is not maintainable against such order.In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit the revision and the same is herby dismissed.Petition dismissed.

*******