MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Rule directed against Order No. 139, dated the 6th November, 1968 in Title Suit No. 20 of 1963 (Andrews Joakin and Others v. M/s. Gulenur Bibi and Others) in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge allowed the application of the defendant No. 9, Messrs. Burn and Co. Ltd. praying for local investigation of the property in suit under the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that a large plot of land which was originally known as No. 20, Durgapur Lane in Alipore was subsequently sub-divided, renumbered and renamed; and a portion thereof is now known as 14, Alipore Avenue which is the subject-matter of this suit. The plaintiffs claim to be the purchase of an undivided share in 14, Alipore Avenue. The defendant No. 9 Messrs. Burn and Co. Ltd. claims that it is entitled to the entire property and is in possession thereof. The learned Subordinate Judge has made an order for local investigation in respect of this property. ( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed any further with the facts of this case, we should try any appreciate the principles governing an order for local investigation. This order, as we have said is made under the provisions of Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code. The Rule reads thus: -?in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. . . . the Court may issue a commission to such person as is thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? ( 3 ) THIS Rule has been construed in a number of decision of this Court as well as of other High Courts. And we may conveniently refer to some of them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? ( 3 ) THIS Rule has been construed in a number of decision of this Court as well as of other High Courts. And we may conveniently refer to some of them. In (1) Amulya Kumar Samaddar and Others v. Annada Charan Das and Others, reported in AIR 1933 Cal 475, this Court has laid down that where the question to be decided is whether certain structures are old or new, the proper procedure is to issue commission under Order 39, Rule 7 and not under Order 26, Rule 4 or Rule 9. It is observed: ?the last mentioned rule (Rule 9) however was not meant to cover a case of this description. It only enables the Court to depute a Commissioner to hold a local investigation for the purpose of elucidating a matter in dispute. . . . . The only part of this rule within which a matter of this description may be reasonably attempted to be brought is the part which says that a commission may be issued for the purpose of elucidating a mater in dispute. This commission however was not for the purpose of elucidating any matter about which the parties were at variance because there was nothing which required any explanation. What was required was a decision on the question as to whether what was asserted on behalf of the other side namely that the structures standing on the land were recent and not old structures was a true assertion or not, a matter about which the Court and the Court alone had jurisdiction to enquire into and decide upon. ? ( 4 ) THIS judgment indicates that an order under Rule 9 of Order XXVI is made for the purpose of elucidating any matter on which there is a dispute between the parties and the Commissioner is expected to submit a report on the dispute raised by making a local investigation. In other words, where a local investigation does not solve a dispute, Rule 9 of Order 26 has no application. The next case is the case of the Patna High Court in (2) Ramkirpal v. Mahesh, reported in AIR 1952 Patna 137. In other words, where a local investigation does not solve a dispute, Rule 9 of Order 26 has no application. The next case is the case of the Patna High Court in (2) Ramkirpal v. Mahesh, reported in AIR 1952 Patna 137. In this case it has been held that an order appointing a Commissioner for making local investigation on points which were extraneous to the suit and beyond the scope of enquiry under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be set aside in revision by the High Court when the order instead of promoting the ends of justice hampers justice and involves a calamitous of time and money. ( 5 ) WE now refer to a case of the Madras High Court (3) (In re : P. Moosa Kutty, reported in AIR 1953 Madras 717. The Madras High Court has followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Amulya Kumar Samaddar's case reported in AIR 1933 Cal. 475 and has held that: ?the object of the local investigation is not so much to collect evidence which can be taken in Court but to obtain evidence which from its very peculiar nature can only be had on the spot?. ( 6 ) THE Madras High Court has further held that the Court has discretion to order local investigation or not and the Court is not bound to make the order in all cases. The same view was taken by the Kerala High Court in (4) Maroli Achuthan v. Kunhipathumma, reported in AIR 1968 Kerala 28. ( 7 ) GOING through the authorities which have construed the Rule 9 of Order XXVI it seems to under section that the following broad principles may be laid down: -1. No order for local investigation can be made except in the case of a dispute which has been specifically raised by the parties. 2. The nature of dispute must be such that it cannot be conveniently decided by taking evidence in Court but requires an investigation on the spot, and 3. An application for local investigation should ordinarily be made at the early stage of the suit. ( 8 ) APPLYING the above principles to the facts of this case we find that no dispute as to the identity of the land was raised either in the pleadings or in the issues. An application for local investigation should ordinarily be made at the early stage of the suit. ( 8 ) APPLYING the above principles to the facts of this case we find that no dispute as to the identity of the land was raised either in the pleadings or in the issues. On the contrary paragraph 2 of the plaint reads thus: -?that formerly the municipal number of the premises of which the said land and Premises No. 14, Alipore Avenue formed a part was No. 20, Durgapore Lane under the said Corporation of Calcutta with which several premises bearing various municipal numbers of other premises situated at the said Durgapore Lane were merged and/or amalgamated and assessed with the said Premises No. 20, Durgapore Lane as per Assessment Register of the Corporation of Calcutta for the year 1900-1905 until the portion thereof in suit was separately known and numbered as 24/10, Raja Santosh Road and thereafter 14, Alipore Avenue as at present. The plaintiffs crave reference to the relevant documents at the time of hearing of the suit. ? ( 9 ) THE paragraph has been dealt with in paragraph 10 of the written statement of the defendant No. 9 (Messrs. Bur and Co. Ltd.) paragraph 10 reads as follows: -?with reference to the allegations in paragraph 2 of the plaint, this defendant states that the area now known as Premises No. 14, Alipore Avenue together with some lands which were subsequently gifted by this defendant to the Calcutta Corporation for roadway in or about 1925, was comprised within a larger area which was known and numbered as 20, Durgapore Lane inor about 1914. The said area was known and numbered as 2, Alipore Park Road, West in or about 1915-1921, 2/1, Alipore Park Road, West from 1921-26, 2/2, Alipore Park Road, West from about 1927-32 and 24/10, Raja Santosh Road from about 1932-38. Thereafter it came to known and numbered as 14, Alipore Avenue, being the premises in suit and this defendant has been the recorded owner thereof in Assessment Register of Calcutta Corporation ever since. This defendant craves leave to refer to and rely on the certified copies of the Assessment Registers of the Calcutta Corporation relating to the suit premises at the time of hearing. ? This defendant craves leave to refer to and rely on the certified copies of the Assessment Registers of the Calcutta Corporation relating to the suit premises at the time of hearing. ? ( 10 ) IN view of the above pleadings we find it difficult to appreciate what precisely the dispute is as to the identity of the premises. Secondly, our attention has been drawn to a plan of the suit premises prepared by a Commissioner at the instant of defendant No. 9 in Miscellaneous Case No. 101 of 1952 in Title Execution Case No. 48 of 1951 in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Alipore. This plan, in our opinion, sufficiently identifies Premises No. 14, Alipore Avenue. It gives particulars of the locality, the situs and the position of the land. We do not see why the defendant No. 9 cannot take appropriate steps for making this plan an exhibit in the present suit. At any rate, we are not told of any impediment in the way of defendant No. 9 taking such steps. Thirdly, it is indeed surprising that the application for local investigation was made by defendant No. 9 on the 26th August, 1968 when the suit was almost ready for hearing. On all the grounds, aforesaid, we are unable to justify an order for local investigation under Order XXVI, Rule 9. ( 11 ) MR. A. D. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the defendant No. 9 has argued before under section that his client's intention is to establish the identity of lands covered by the documents in his client's possession with the suit land. If that be the intention of the defendant No. 9, the proper course is to lead evidence in support of its contention before the Court rather than taking recourse to a local investigation for relying the documents. Mr. Mukherjee has further urged that before the learned Subordinate Judge the petitioner before under section failed to argue that there was no dispute as to the identity of the land. It is true that in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge there is no reference to any such argument. But our attention has been drawn to paragraph 5 of the present petitioner's objection to the application of defendant No. 9 for local investigation. It is true that in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge there is no reference to any such argument. But our attention has been drawn to paragraph 5 of the present petitioner's objection to the application of defendant No. 9 for local investigation. In this paragraph it has been stated that no issue has been framed in the suit doubting the identity of the suit property and the prayer of the defendant No. 9 is entirely misconceived. ( 12 ) IN any event, when the defendant No. 9 made the application for local investigation it was the duty of the said defendant to satisfy the Court that a local investigation was necessary and on the materials on record we are unable to, agree with the order of such investigation. ( 13 ) IN these premises, the rule is made absolute. The order for local investigation is set aside. The defendant No. 9 will pays costs of this application hearing fee being assessed at five hold mohurs. We, however make it clear that if in course of the trial the learned Subordinate Judge feels that in spite of the evidence led by the respective parties, a local investigation is necessary, he will be free to make an order in that behalf on proper materials. Datta, J. : I agree. Rule made absolute.