Judgment :- 1. The Kerala State Housing Board, the third defendant in a suit instituted by the first respondent, is the revision petitioner. The relief prayed for in the plaint which led to the passing of the order under challenge is relief (e). It reads: "(e) To allow the plaintiff to recover all the loss and damages above mentioned due to the unjust acts of the defendant including plaintiffs investments, would be gains prevented gams and earnest money etc., including interest which this court permits". Prevented Along with the suit, the respondent filed I. A. 398/86 for the following relief: "For reasons submitted in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that the posting of the case may be advanced to 22-1-1986 and petition for the appointment of a technical personality as commissioner to enquire into the matters under issues is be heard and ordered". This prayer would indicate that the petition is one filed under Order XXVI R.10 (A) C.P.C. The court below after considering the various aspects of the case has held thus: "....So I hold that this petition is maintainable. Considering the V prayer in the plaint I find that the appointment of a commissioner is necessary for the proper adjudication of this case. So in the interest of justice I allow this petition. Mr. K. Madhavan Nair, "Sri. Kripa", Kazhakuttoin, Trivandrum, Retired Chief Engineer, the first person, mentioned in the panel submitted by the counsel of the plaintiff is appointed as the commissioner....". 2. The answer to the question, "Do the facts of the case warrant the issue of an order appointing a technical qualified personals commissioner to resolve the dispute covered by prayer'', depends upon the construction of S.75 (e) and Order XXVI R.10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. S.75 (e) defines and limits the power of the court to issue a commission to hold a scientific, technical or expert investigation. The conditions and limitations prescribed in this connection, are contained in R.10 A of Order XXVI. S.75 (e) defines and limits the power of the court to issue a commission to hold a scientific, technical or expert investigation. The conditions and limitations prescribed in this connection, are contained in R.10 A of Order XXVI. R.10 A reads: "10A:-Commission for scientific investigation:- (1) Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court. This rule says that in the event of the question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the court be conveniently conducted before the court, then the court, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, can appoint a technical qualified person as commissioner, who will be directed to inquire into such question and report thereon to the court. The conditions and limitations, to put it differently are: (1) The question arising in the suit shall involve a scientific investigation. (2) which cannot in the opinion of the court, be conveniently conducted before the court. (3) the court must be of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to issue a commission to a technically qualified, person who can conduct the scientific investigation, and (4) such person shall be directed to inquire into such questions, i.e. questions involving any scientific investigation, and (5) such person shall submit a report thereon. 3. It is thus clear that only for the purpose of a scientific, technical or expert investigation, a technically qualified person can be appointed as commissioner under this Rule and that too only, if the court is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the interest of justice to issue a commission to such a person. This in short is the scheme of the Rule. 4. Considered in the light of the above principles, I am of opinion that the order under challenge is not sustainable in law. No scientific investigation is required to dispose of prayer (e). This in short is the scheme of the Rule. 4. Considered in the light of the above principles, I am of opinion that the order under challenge is not sustainable in law. No scientific investigation is required to dispose of prayer (e). The loss and damages, the plaintiff is alleged to have suffered require to be established by the plaintiff by producing materials before the court. This prayer, on a reading of it, makes it clear that the suit is one for damages simpliciter. No scientific investigation therefore is warranted. The order appointing the commissioner therefore is liable to be set aside. 5. The order is to the effect that it has become necessary to appoint a commissioner for the proper adjudication of the case. The phraseology used In the order would indicate that the court in fact has abdicated its jurisdiction to decide the issue in favour of the commissioner. This is not warranted. For this reason also the order is liable to be set aside. 6. The court below therefore has committed an error of jurisdiction in passing this order. The C.R.P. for the reasons stated above is allowed. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.