Order.- Two points have been argued by Mr. Bhimasankaram for the petitioners and the first of them is that the Commissioner appointed by the Court to divide the properties by metes and bounds in a partition suit where a preliminary decree has been passed is not a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. What happened here is that after the passing of a preliminary decree for partition, the District Munsiff appointed a Commissioner under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, to go to the spot, identify the properties, divide them, demarcate the boundaries and report to the Court. While the Commissioner with the assistance of people whom he had taken was measuring the lands the petitioners objected to it and used force by dragging the chain by which the lands were being measured. Petitioners I to 5 obstructed on the first day and at their instigation petitioners 6 to 10 did it on the next day. For this act they were charge-sheeted under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty by both the lower Courts. The argument of Mr. Bhimasankaram is that since the Commissioner is not a public servant any obstruction to the work done by him cannot be termed an offence coming within the ambit of section 186, Indian Penal Code. The answer to this depends upon the interpretation of the fourth clause of section 21, Indian Penal Code and this contemplates that any person specially authorised by a Court of justice to perform any of the duties such as investigate or report on any matter of law and fact is a public servant within the meaning of the term. Though the Commissioner here is not a permanent Government servant like an amin or a process server or a clerk, still he is an officer appointed or specially authorised by a Court of justice to investigate and report on a question of fact. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a Commissioner appointed by a Court to divide the properties by metes and bounds as a result of a preliminary decree for partition is a public servant within the meaning of the term under section 21 of Indian Penal Code. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a Commissioner appointed by a Court to divide the properties by metes and bounds as a result of a preliminary decree for partition is a public servant within the meaning of the term under section 21 of Indian Penal Code. The next argument to the learned counsel is that the Commissioner had no justification, after the protests of the petitioners, to enter upon the lands and measure it. The proper course which the Commissioner ought to have taken was to have reported to the Court to the effect that there was obstruction to his proceeding with the work. Not having done so and the Commissioner proceeding to measure the lands in spite of the protests by the petitioners who claimed the lands to be theirs, the action of the petitioners in preventing such work cannot be said to be an offence. I am afraid this argument proceeds upon the assumption that it is open to a party to obstruct a public servant in the discharge of his duties if the public servant is told by the party that he should not act as such. The proper procedure for the petitioners would have been to apply to the Court stating that the Commissioner was trespassing upon the lands which are not the subject-matter of the suit. This they have not done. Even otherwise on the finding by the trial Court that the petitioners insisted in the property being leased to each of them their action in preventing the Commissioner amounts to an offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code. Since both the points argued by the learned counsel are unacceptable to me, the order of the lower Court is confirmed. These revisions are, therefore, dismissed. V.S. ----- Petitions dismissed.