The court has the power to appoint a Commission for elucidating any point in dispute, including the possession of a property, and the power to investigate regarding possession can be delegated to a Commission.

Rajindra Nath Mittal, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Nabha dated 15th June, 1977.

2. An Application under Order XXVI, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed by the plaintiff for appointing a Local Commissioner to find out as to who was in possession of the house in dispute. The application was rejected by the subordinate Judge on the ground that the court could not delegate its duty to the Local Commissioner. The plaintiff has come up in revision against the aforesaid order.

3. Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code inter alia provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to the requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, it may issue a commission to such a person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. From a bare reading of the rule, it is evident that a Court can appoint a Commission for elucidating any point in dispute. In the present case, there is a dispute regarding the possession of the house in dispute. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that the power to investigate regarding the possession of the house could not be delegated. The view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be erroneous on the face of it. Such a power could always be given to a Commission. In my view, the Court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and the order is liable to be set aside.

4. For the aforesaid reason, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the trial Court and direct to appoint the Commission in accordance with law. The petitioner is direct to appear in the trial Court on 2nd January, 1978. No order as to costs. Petition accepted.