Key Points: - The judgment holds that Order 26 Rule 9 CPC permits appointment of a Local Commissioner for local investigations when the court deems it requisite to elucidate any matter in dispute. (!) (!) - The court appointed a Local Commissioner to ascertain the factual position at the spot to determine the existence of water khal and underground water pipes, to avoid excessive oral evidence and for accurate determination. (!) (!) - The revision petition under Article 227 was dismissed, upholding the order appointing the Local Commissioner. (!) - The Local Commissioner’s role is to ascertain factual position at the spot, not to determine possession, and to elucidate disputed issues. (!) (!) - The case references that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to elucidate any matter in dispute and that such orders are not revisable in certain contexts, though in this case the challenge was to an order appointing, which was rejected. (!) (!)

What is the legality of appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for spot inspection to elucidate a matter in dispute?

What are the circumstances under which a Local Commissioner can be appointed to ascertain the factual position at the spot in a suit for injunction regarding khal and underground water pipes?

What is the scope of revisibility of orders appointing a Local Commissioner in the context of Article 227 challenges?