JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been instituted by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gurugram, whereby an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), preferred by the respondents–plaintiffs, has been allowed at a belated stage, i.e., when the trial had substantially concluded and both parties had already led their respective evidence.

2. The respondents–plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking a decree of declaration, coupled with consequential relief of permanent injunction, asserting that they have acquired a legally enforceable right to use a passage situated on the northern side of Khasra No.49, measuring approximately 15’/16’ in width, for access to their property comprised in Khasra No.48. It was further pleaded that they have acquired easementary rights over the said passage and sought restraint against the petitioners–defendants from raising any construction thereupon.

3. The petitioners–defendants (respondents No.1 and 3 to 6 before the trial Court) contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the same is barred by the principle of res-judicata. They categorically denied the existence of any private passage in Khasra No.49 and disputed the respondents–plaintiffs’ locus standi, asserting absence of any right, title, or interest in the suit property. It was further averred that the respondents– plaintiffs, along with other adjoining proprietors, have been using an alternative passage through Khasra Nos.48 and 50 for several years. Allegations of suppression of material facts were also raised. The petitioners further asserted that their predecessors were in possession of the suit property as Dholidars since the year 1860 and, by virtue of a Court order dated 21.07.2015, they have become owners in possession, with mutation duly sanctioned in their favour.

3.1. It is not in dispute that the respondents–plaintiffs had already concluded their evidence during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, upon the appearance of DW-1 Sandeep and the alleged failure of the respondents–plaintiffs to elicit favourable responses during cross- examination, an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner came to be filed. The said application, though opposed, was allowed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in appointing a Local Commissioner is wholly misconceived and contrary to settled principles of law. It is urged that the Court cannot permit a party to fill lacunae in its case or assist in the collection of evidence under the guise of a commission. The application, it is submitted, has been moved with the sole intent of gathering evidence after failure to establish the case during trial, particularly when the suit has been pending for nearly eight years without any such request having been made earlier.

5.1. It is further contended that the respondents–plaintiffs, having asserted easementary rights, were under a legal obligation to establish continuous and uninterrupted use of the alleged passage for the statutory period of over twenty years, which cannot be substituted by a local investigation. The learned trial Court is also stated to have been unduly influenced by certain aspects of the cross-examination of defendant No.1, and the impugned order effectively delegates the judicial function of determining possession and factual issues, which is impermissible in law.

5.2. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Dharamshala through its Managing Committee vs. Piara Singh and Others (CR-6633-2018, deci