JUDGMENT 1. - This dispute in the civil suit No. 66 of 1980 is whether certain shops constructed by the petitioners are in Khasra No. 543 or 544. The parties led evidence and thereafter on the application of the petitioners a Commissioner was appointed for inspecting the site. He submitted a report, which ostensibly goes against the petitioner. He thereafter applied before the court for the appointment of another Commissioner and this application was rejected on 18-9-1987 by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Karauli. Against this order he has preferred Revision Petition No. 105 of 1988. Thereafter he moved another application for seeking permission of the court for examining the Commissioner and this was also rejected by the order dated 3rd November, 1987. Against this he has preferred Revision Petition No. 38 of 1988. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Commissioner has in his report not given the measurement of the disputed land and shops, but on the opinion of the Girdavar and Patwari mentioned that the shops are in Khasra No. 544. Placing reliance on Order 26 Rule 10, CPC, it is contended that the report of the Commissioner as well as the evidence taken by him forms the part of the record, and the court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to the manner in which he had made the investigation. According to the petitioner, it is necessary to bring on record as to how the investigation has been made and how the report has been prepared before it can be acted upon by the court. Reliance has been placed on Hansraj v. Nathumal AIR 1929 Lahore 782 , wherein it has been held that the party objecting to the report of the Commissioner inaccurate is entitled to substantiate the contention. 3. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has contested that the revision petition is not maintainable because both the orders against which the revision petitions have been preferred cannot be said to be case decided within the meaning of explanation to Section 115 CPC. 3. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has contested that the revision petition is not maintainable because both the orders against which the revision petitions have been preferred cannot be said to be case decided within the meaning of explanation to Section 115 CPC. It is contended that any order in the course of a suit cannot be made subject to revision unless that order decides the rights and obligations of the parties in any matter. In Harvinder Kaur and Anr. v. Godharam and Anr. AIR 1979 P&H 76 , it has been held that any order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner is not a case decided within the meaning of explanation to Section 115 CPC. In Sri Bala Chandra Kundu and Anr. v. Radharani De and Ors. AIR 1986 Cal. 396 , it was held that defendant's objection to a Commissioner's report, which was rejected and report was taken on record, the High Court could not interfere in revision. 4. I have considered the various contentions raised on behalf of both the sides. It is true that the High Court in revision can interfere only when it is satisfied that the subordinate court has committed any jurisdictional error and that if the order is not varied or reversed it would occasion to a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the parties against whom it was made. Limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court by this provision makes it clear that it should not interfere with every order passed during the course of a suit, or an innocuous order which does not decide the rights and obligations of the parties in any manner. However the question whether a particular order can be said to effect the rights and obligations of a party or not, would depend upon the order itself. 5. In the present case the first order dated 21-9-1987 is an order rejecting the application of the petitioner for the appointment of a second Commissioner. This order cannot be said to affect the rights of the petitioner as on his earlier application Commissioner had been appointed and it cannot be said that he can go on moving applications for appointment of new Commissioner until such time as a report is made in his favour. This order cannot be said to affect the rights of the petitioner as on his earlier application Commissioner had been appointed and it cannot be said that he can go on moving applications for appointment of new Commissioner until such time as a report is made in his favour. The provision of Order 26 Rule 10 CPC provides for the manner in which a report of the Commissioner can be challenged and this is a better method of satisfying the court not to believe the report rather than asking the court to appoint a new Commissioner. The first order refusing appointment of a second Commissioner, therefore, cannot be said, to be an order passed illegally or with the material irregularity in the exercise of discretion of the court. But coming to the next order dated 3-11-1987, it can be said that the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and if this order is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to the party, namely, the petitioner and in order to avoid this failure of justice it is necessary that this court should interfere. After all the Commissioner is appointed to make local investigation in order to assist the court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion and the Commissioner visited the site has to give details on the basis of which he has arrived at the conclusion rather than mention the conclusion alone. The Commissioner is also empowered to record evidence while inspecting site and this evidence is also to be submitted before the court. If for the purpose of clarifying these matters the petitioner wants to examine the Commissioner personally in the court then the circumstances make it very clear that the permission should have been granted by the court. 6. In the result the revision petition No. 105 of 1988 is dismissed. While revision petition No 38 of 1988 is accepted, and the order of the court below dated 3-11-1987 is set aside. The parties shall be entitled to question the Commissioner who has submitted the report. The trial court is directed that it shall see that not much time is wasted in the examination of the Commissioner. A copy of this order may be sent to the trial court immediately. The parties shall be entitled to question the Commissioner who has submitted the report. The trial court is directed that it shall see that not much time is wasted in the examination of the Commissioner. A copy of this order may be sent to the trial court immediately. The parties are directed to appear before the (rial court on 10-5-1988 and, thereafter the court will fix a date on which the Commissioner is to be examined.Petition No. 38/1988 allowed.Petition No. 105/1988 dismissed. *******