JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - This civil revision filed by Defendants 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiffs for possession by removing alleged encroachment of 17 decimals of land in Dhenkanal Town. The Petitioners challenge the order of the learned Munsif, Dhenkanal, by which he refused to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation for relaying the maps of Revisional Settlement and Town Improvement Settlement: Scheme of Dhenkanal town as prayed for by the Defendants-Petitioners. 2. The ground for rejecting their petition is that it was filed at a very late stage in that the Defendants filed their written statement in October 1963 and from the date of filing the written statement till December 18, 1964 on which the learned Munsif passed the said order no steps were taken by the Defendants-Petitioners for appointment of a Commissioner. The learned Munsif observes that the petition filed by the Defendants for appointment of Commissioner lacks bona fides, it is delatory and therefore it was rejected. Hence this civil revision. 3. The suit was filed on July 24, 1963. On August 24, 1963 there was an application for injunction filed by the Plaintiffs. On October 18, 1963 the Defendants filed written statement. Thereafter on February 7, 1964 the records were sent to the appellate Court in the injunction matter. On March 18, 1964 the records were received back from the appellate Court. On September 4, 1964 the suit was directed to be heard with regard to a preliminary point regarding jurisdiction. On September 25, 1964 the jurisdiction point was decided. On October 22, 1964 the deficit court-fee was to be paid and on October 27, 1964 the deficit court-fee was accepted. On November 14, 1964 the case came to be heard for the first time on which date the Plaintiffs took adjournment and in the mean time the Defendants filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner and it was on December 18, 1964 that the learned Munsif passed the impugned order. 4. These dates show that there was no delay on the part of the Defendants in filing the application for appointment of Commissioner. It is a material irregularity on the part of the learned Munsif in not taking into consideration these facts and rejecting the same without going into merits. 4. These dates show that there was no delay on the part of the Defendants in filing the application for appointment of Commissioner. It is a material irregularity on the part of the learned Munsif in not taking into consideration these facts and rejecting the same without going into merits. The learned Munsif also did not consider the application on merits which he should have done. 5. In view of the nature of the dispute between the parties on the question of alleged encroachment of the land it is necessary that a Commissioner should have been appointed for the purpose of relaying the maps as prayed for in the Defendants' application for appointment of Commissioner. 6. In the result, therefore, the civil revision is allowed and the order of the learned Munsif dated December 18, 1964 is set aside with the directions that a survey-knowing Commissioner be appointed by the learned Munsif for the purpose of relaying the maps as prayed for in the Defendants' application for appointment of Commissioner. There will be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed