GOSWAMI, C. JF.:- This application in revision is directed against the order of the Munsiff, Sibsagar refusing to allow the prayer of the plaintiff for a commis­sion to make local investigation by a pro­per survey under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. We may note how the matter arose in the suit before the learned Mun­siff. The plaintiff brought a suit for de­claration of right title and delivery of khas possession of certain land described in the schedule to the plaint and for per­manent injunction restraining the defend­ant from digging trenches and raising brick wall on the suit land The defend­ant resisted the claim stating that the disputed land does not fall in the dags as alleged. He contended that a brick wall was being constructed on his own land and not on the land of the plaintiff. The defendant raised various other pleas also. On the prayer of the plaintiff, the Munsiff appointed the Sub Deputy Col­lector of Sonari Circle as Commissioner to survey and measure the land in ques­tion. On 12th July, 1967 he submitted a report, which disclosed that he could not give a definite account of the suit land after investigation for certain reasons mentioned therein. Ultimately, the Mun­siff held a local inspection of the suit land on 6th April. 1968 in presence of both parties. The Munsiff got the suit land measured by the Lot Mandal according to the old map. The learned Munsiff also submitted a report about the mea­surement. It was stated in the said re­port that after measurement it appeared that the plaintiff was in possession of 2 K. 15 L. of Dag No. 330 (old) and the defendant was in possession of 1 K. 4 L. of the same dag (2 lechas more than he purchased). On 28th May, 1968, the plaintiff filed an application supported by an affidavit stating that the memorandum of local inspection prepared by the learn­ed Munsiff was not correct on the grounds given in that petition. He, therefore, prayed for re-issue of a Commission to the Sub-Deputy Collector or Surveyor Kanango to ascertain the encroachment made by the defendant in Dag No. 330 (old) with the help of the old approved map. The learned Munsiff rejected that prayer and hence this revision. 3. He, therefore, prayed for re-issue of a Commission to the Sub-Deputy Collector or Surveyor Kanango to ascertain the encroachment made by the defendant in Dag No. 330 (old) with the help of the old approved map. The learned Munsiff rejected that prayer and hence this revision. 3. At the very outset, the learned Advocate-General of Meghalaya appear­ing on behalf of the defendant, submits that this application should be rejected as no case has been decided by the learned Munsiff against which a revision applica­tion may lie under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in (1969) 2 SCC 201 = ( AIR 1970 SC 406 ), Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors. It will appear that this decision has reiterated what had been earlier decided by the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 497 , S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon and the following passage at para. 11 is apposite: "The expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import: it includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil court. To interpret the expres­sion "case" as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of powers of superintendence to which the jurisdiction to issue writs, and the super­visory jurisdiction are not subject, and may result in certain cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most needed, and may result in the per­petration of gross injustice." It is true that every interlocutory order may not attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, but there may be some orders which, if not interfered with at the proper time, will lead to inordinate delay in disposal of the real issues raised In the suit and in many cases result in hardship and injustice. As we show presently, this preliminary objection Is of no force, 4. By the Impugned order, the learned Munsiff purported to exercise his power under Order XVIII, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the mea­surement of the land was done in pre sense of the plaintiff and his lawyer, it is held by the Munsiff that he cannot raise any objection to the measurement. By the Impugned order, the learned Munsiff purported to exercise his power under Order XVIII, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the mea­surement of the land was done in pre sense of the plaintiff and his lawyer, it is held by the Munsiff that he cannot raise any objection to the measurement. The learned Munsiff observed: "I fail to understand as to how this court, which itself made the investigation, can revise its earlier order, x x x It is seen from the Memorandum that the measurement of the suit land was just and there cannot be any ground for re­jecting the said measurement x x x" It is, therefore, clear that although the learned Munsiff wanted only to do an inspection of the land in suit under Order XVIII, Rule 18, C. P. C., he was actually constituting himself a Commis­sioner for surveying the land with the help of the land records staff under Order XXVI, Rule 9. C. P. C. The report which has been read to us also shows that cer­tain measurement has been done and some conclusion has been arrived at by the learned Munsiff. Under Order XXVI, Rule 9, C, P. C.. the court, in an appro­priate case, may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of that Order, the Court or, with its permission, any of the parties to the suit, may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. Under sub-rule (3), where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commission­er, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit. Under Order XVIII, Rule 18, it was not possible for the Munsiff to make a local investiga­tion in the manner done in this suit. Under that rule, the Court may, at any stage of a suit, inspect any property or thing concerning which a question may arise. Under Order XVIII, Rule 18, it was not possible for the Munsiff to make a local investiga­tion in the manner done in this suit. Under that rule, the Court may, at any stage of a suit, inspect any property or thing concerning which a question may arise. Although the Court is empowered to inspect the property in a suit at any stage, it is not permissible for the Court to conduct an enquiry in order to furnish evidence in the suit for a proper decision of the issues raised in the suit. Power under Order XVIII, Rule 18 is ordinarily exercised in order to appreciate the evi­dence adduced in the suit by inspection of property or thing concerning which any question is raised. The Court in its dis­cretion uses this power in a proper case. When the Court inspects the property under this Rule, it makes a memorandum of Inspection for the purpose of the re­cord. There can be no cross-examination of the court with regard to such a report and the court does not become a witness to the proceeding by making this inspec­tion. On the other hand, a Commissioner under Order XXVI. Rule 9 has to offer himself as a witness, if required, to satisfy the court regarding the correctness or accuracy of his report or even about the manner in which he has conducted the proceeding. This right under Order XXVI, Rule 10 is available to either party in the suit. By the impugned order, the court, although purported to exercise its power under Order XVIII, Rule 18, C. P. C., in fact, made a survey report and also at the same time denied opportunity to the plaintiff to question the same or to furnish other appropriate evidence which, he thinks, should be given in order to establish his case with regard to the measurement of the land in suit. In other words, the court in this case has become a witness to the most important issue about the actual measurement of the area of the land and its location and this was the only serious issue to be fought be­tween the parties in the suit. After hav­ing performed the function of the Com­missioner under Order XXVI, Rule 9, as it appears to be, the learned Munsiff al­most disqualified himself from further continuing adjudication of the suit. After hav­ing performed the function of the Com­missioner under Order XXVI, Rule 9, as it appears to be, the learned Munsiff al­most disqualified himself from further continuing adjudication of the suit. Be­sides, by the impugned order, the learned Munsiff has refused the plaintiff an op­portunity to furnish evidence which he considers necessary for the purpose of the suit. This is, therefore, a case in which the learned Munsiff has acted, even in the exercise of his jurisdiction, illegally or with material irregularity. A proper trial has been forestalled, as it were, by the impugned order. If we allow this order to remain, there will be absolutely no proper trial or adjudication of the main issue in this suit. Besides, the impugned order has been passed only after submis­sion of the written statement before pro­duction of any evidence by the parties and even prior to the framing of the issues in this suit. Section 115 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is clearly attract­ed in this case and that is the reason why we have_ already overruled the prelimi­nary objection of the respondent. It is clear that progress of the trial to a proper termination under the legal process has been hindered by the impugned order. We have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the impugned order as well as the report of the Munsiff dated 8th April, 1968, which we hereby do under Sec­tion 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In the result the application is allowed and the plaintiff's application for survey commission under Order XXVI, Rule 9, C. P. C. is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The records shall go down to the court below immediately for an expeditious trial. D.M.SEN, J.:- 6. I agree. Application allowed.