1. In this case, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned appellate court, whereby his application for appointment of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. read with Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

3. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against father of the petitioner – Satya Krishna Dobhal, which was decreed by learned trial court. During pendency of the suit, petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointing commission for inspection of the spot, which was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 06.09.2014. Petitioner filed regular first appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court. In the memo of appeal, he took a specific ground that rejection of application for appointment of commission by the trial court was wrong and if the said application was allowed then the result would have been different. Thereafter, before the appellate court also petitioner moved an application for appointment of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 41 Rule 27 of