A trial court cannot delegate its adjudicative powers to a Local Commissioner for evidence collection, and the petitioner must prove claims through direct evidence.

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(1) To quash the order dated 18.01.2024 Annexure P-1. (2) To direct the court below to appoint a commissioner to measure/inspect the constructed work.

(3) To pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the cost of articles illegally retained by the defendant as well as Rs.1,46,927/- towards the labour cost. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the defendant to construct a house. The construction is over, however, full and final payment has not been made. It is submitted that in the meanwhile the respondent approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum and application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. was filed before the Consumer Forum on 13.09.2015 and the Commissioner was appointed but on account of dispute between the parties on the spot, the Commissioner could not complete his work and accordingly, another Commissioner was appointed by the Consumer Forum by order dated 16.03.2016 but later on by order dated 29.08.2016, the Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint with liberty to the defendant to approach the Civil Court. It is submitted that the evidence of the petitioner was over on 27.10.2023 and he filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. on 24.11.2023. However, by order dated 18.01.2024, the application has been rejected.

3. Challenging the impugned order, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. has not been filed for collecting evidence but it has been filed for clarifying the evidence and, therefore, the Court below should have allowed the application.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is well established principle of law that the trial Court cannot delegate his power to the Local Commissioner to adjudicate the lis.

6. The petitioner can always prove by leading evidence about the construction raised by him and this important piece of evidence cannot be allowed to be collected through the Local Commissioner.

7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that since the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collecting evidence, therefore, the trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error by rejecting the application.

8. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.