Order

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Jayal, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2023 (Satyanarayan vs. Gulabchand & Anr.), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The brief facts, as noticed from the record, are that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, wherein an order dated 05.01.2023 was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo on the basis of a Commissioner’s report dated 22.12.2022. The petitioner, alleging violation of the said order, initiated proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C. and during the pendency thereof, moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of C.P.C. seeking appointment of a site commissioner for fresh inspection of the disputed property. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application by treating it as an attempt to lead additional evidence, whereas, the power under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of C.P.C. read with Section 75 and Section 151 of C.P.C. is specifically intended to enable the Court to ascertain the correct factual position at the spot.

5. It is submitted that in view of the denial by the respondents regarding alleged violation of the status quo order, a fresh site inspection was necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy in the pending proceedings.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions of this Court as under :-

i. Kachri vs. Kanti Lal reported in 2023 Supreme (Raj) 721

ii. Girdhari Singh vs. Rameshwar Singh reported in 2019 Supreme (Raj) 505

iii. Puran Banjara and Anr. vs. Civil Judge (JD) and Anr. reported in 2010 Supreme (Raj) 1743

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order, submits that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of C.P.C. was rightly rejected by the trial court as the petitioner was seeking to collect additional evidence under the guise of a local investigation. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to establish any necessity for appointment of a site commissioner, particularly when the alleged violation of the status quo order is seriously disputed and can be adjudicated on the basis of the existing record and evidence already on file.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking appointment of a site commissioner to verify the present factual position of the suit property in the backdrop of allegations of violation of the status quo order dated 05.01.2023.

10. It is well settled that Order XXXIX Rule 7 of C.P.C. empowers the Court to make local investigation or issue commission for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, and such power is intended to assist the Court in arriving at a correct factual determination. Similarly, Section 75 of C.P.C. and Section 151 of C.P.C. confer inherent and ancillary powers upon the Court to secure the ends of justice.

11. In the present case, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the respondents have altered the condition of the suit property in violation of the status quo order, which is seriously disputed by the respondents. In such circumstances, a contemporaneous site inspection by a Court Commissioner would have aided the Court in determining the truth of the rival contentions. The trial court, however, proceeded on the premise that the application was an attempt to collect evidence and declined to exercise the jur