Heard Sri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.A. Zamal, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Facts of the present case are that petitioner-plaintiff initially filed a Suit (registered as Regular Suit No. 254 of 2006), dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2010 passed by Civil Judge(J.D.), Raebareli.

3. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2010) before District Judge, Raebareli/respondent no. 1. During the pendency of the appeal, she moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment as well as an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. for Commission.

4. By means of impugned order dated 02.11.2010, respondent no.1 allowed the application for amendment, however the application for local inspection/Commission has been rejected.

5. Hence, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.11.2010 so far it relates to the rejection of petitioner's application for inspection/Commission moved under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 02.11.2010 on the following grounds :

(A) Respondent no. 1 has c