JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Prem Prakash Mishra, against the orders passed by the District Judge, Kota, in proceedings initiated by the non-petitioners under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside an exparte decree passed in favour of the petitioner and against the non petitioners in Civil Suit No. 20/87. Civil Revision No. 9/9/87 is directed against the order dated 15th December, 1987 and Civil Revision No. 53/88 is directed against the order dated 10th December, 1987. 2. It appears that the petitioner had let out his house to non-petitioner No. 1 and the non-petitioner No. 1 was having its registered office in the said premises. The petitioner filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 202/87) in the Court of District Judge, Kota, against the non-petitioners for their eviction from the said premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity. In the said suit an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the non-petitioners on 8th October, 1987. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for execution of the said decree and in these execution proceedings the District Judge, Jaipur, City, Jaipur issued a warrant for possession on 8th December, 1987. On 10th December, 1987 an application was submitted by the non-petitioners before the District Judge, Kota under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the exparte decree dated 8th October, 1987. Alongwith the said application the non-petitioner also submitted an application for passing an interim order for staying the enforcement of the exparte decree. After receiving the said application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code , on 10th December, 1987 the District Judge passed an order appointing Shri Chandra Prakash Verma as Commissioner to make an inspection of the site and to submit his report on the same day. In accordance with the said order Shri Chandra Prakash Verma, inspected the site on 10th December, 1987 at 1.40 p.m. and submitted his report. In the said report, the Commissioner has stated that when he went to the premises he found that the door of the outer gate was locked and he was told that the key of the same was with the petitioner, who had gone to his house for taking meals. In the said report, the Commissioner has stated that when he went to the premises he found that the door of the outer gate was locked and he was told that the key of the same was with the petitioner, who had gone to his house for taking meals. The Commissioner has also stated that Shri O.P. Mishra, the brother of the petitioner, was present there and he told him that he had the key of the lock of the main building and thereupon he sealed the compound wall and went inside the house after opening the lock of the house. In the said report the Commissioner has also stated that certain goods were lying outside the house and the list of the said goods was given him by Shri Gokul Prasad, Special Amin of the Court of District Judge Kota. The Commissioner has also given the particular of the fixtures and furnitures and other things which were found inside the house. The said report bear the signatures of Shri O.P. Mishra as well as Shri R. C. Gupta, the Secretary of the non- petitioner No. 1. After the receipt of the said report of the Commissioner the District Judge passed an order dated 10th December, 1987 wherein it is stated that the report of the Commissioner has been perused and that both the parties are claiming that they are in possession and that the report of the Nazir has not been received as yet By the said order the District Judge directed the Nazir to submit his report and in the meanwhile he directed that the property will remain in the possession of the Commissioner and that the status-quo would be maintained and the matter was fixed for 11th December, 1987 On 11th December, 1987 the matter was adjourned to 15th December, 1987 but the interim' order dated 10th December, 1987 was continued. On 15th December, 1987 a reply was submitted on behalf of the petitioner and certain affidavits were submitted and the case was adjourned to 16th December, 1957 for submitting affidavits of the non-petitioners and for arguments The interim order was further extended. On 16th December, 067 affidavits were submitted on behalf of the non-petitioners and the deponents of the affidavits were allowed to be cross examined by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner the statement of Shri Kalhai Prasad was recorded. On 16th December, 067 affidavits were submitted on behalf of the non-petitioners and the deponents of the affidavits were allowed to be cross examined by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner the statement of Shri Kalhai Prasad was recorded. The petitioner sought time to produce two witnesses namely Shri Harimohan and Shri Kamal Chand Gupta, Advocate and the case was adjourned to 17th December, 1987. In the meanwhile the petitioner moved Civil Revision Petition No. 919/87 in this Court on 17th December, 1987. Civil Revision No. 53/88 was filed subsequently. 3. I have heard Sbri S.C Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. M. Mehta the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 4. Shri Agrawal has urged that the District Judge, has committed an error of jurisdiction in giving a direction in his order dated 10th December, 1987, with regard to the property being put in possession of the Commissioner and in continuing the said order on subsequent dates during the pendency of the application filed by the non petitioners under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . The submission of Shri Agrawal is that from the report of the Nazir in the execution proceedings, it is clear that the possession of the property had been delivered to the petitioner in the execution proceedings on 10th Dec., 1987 at 11.00 a m. and that this fact has (sic) also barge out by the report submitted by Shri Chandra Prakash Verma, and that there was no question of passing any interim order in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code and that in the event of the said application being allowed and the ex parte decree that has been passed in favour of the petitioner being set aside the non-petitioners could have an application for restitution under Section 144 Civil Procedure Code . 5. Shri Mehta on the other hand, has urged that the revisional jurisdiction which is exercised by this Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code is of a discretionary nature and that the facts and circumstances of the present case and specially the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to invoke the said jurisdiction. 5. Shri Mehta on the other hand, has urged that the revisional jurisdiction which is exercised by this Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code is of a discretionary nature and that the facts and circumstances of the present case and specially the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to invoke the said jurisdiction. In this regard Shri Mehra has pointed out that the petitioner and obtained an exparte decree against the no-petitioner on the basis of a wrong report about the service of the summons and that since the petitioner has played fraud on the Court in obtaining an exparte decree, this Court should not interfere with the orders passed by the District Judge. Shri Mehta has also submitted that earlier also the petitioner had made an effort to obtain illegal possession of the premises and in that regard a police case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of FIR lodged by Ramesh Chandra Gupta, the Secretary of non-petitioner No. 1, at Police Station, Gumanpura on 13th October, 1986. 6. Shri Agrawal has pointed out that in the police case registered on the basis of FIR dated 13th October, 1986, a final report has been submitted by the police after investigation and the matter is now pending for consideration with the concerned Magistrate. Shri Agrawal has denied that the petitioner has committed any fraud in obtaining the exparte decree and has urged that the question whether the exparte decree is liable to be set aside is a matter which is still to be decided by the District Judge. 7. Having considered, the submissions referred to above, I am of the opinion that the District Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order dated 10th December, 1987 whereby he has directed that the possession of the property shall be with the Commission. Shri Chandra Prakash Verma, and in continuing the said direction in orders dated 11th December, 1987, 15th December, 1987, 16th December, 1987, and 17th December, 1987 during the pendency of the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . It was open to the District Judge to appoint Shri Chandra Prakash Verma, as a Commissioner to inspect the site and make a report with regard to the property in dispute. It was open to the District Judge to appoint Shri Chandra Prakash Verma, as a Commissioner to inspect the site and make a report with regard to the property in dispute. Such a report was considered necessary for the purpose of passing an order on the application for an interim order that was submitted by the non-petitioners on 10th December, 1987 alongwith the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code. After the receipt of the report of the Commissioner, the District Judge should have passed an appropriate order on the said application. The District Judge, however, not justified in passing an order, directing that the possession of the property shall be with the Commissioner Shri Chandra Prakash Verma. At the time of the passing of the said order the Commissioner was not in possession of the property. From the report of the Nazir as well as the report of the Commissioner it appears that the possession of the property had been delivered to the petitioner. As a result of the directions given by the District Judge, on 10th Dec., 1987 the Commissioner took over the possession of the house from the petitioner by placing his locks on the property. Such an order for directing the possession of the property being given to the Commissioner is not contemplated under any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Under Order 26 a Commissioner can be appointed to examine a witness, for local investigation. for scientific investigation, for sale of immovable property for examing accounts. or to make partition. Under order 39 Rule, 7 also the Court can make an order for inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit in the present case, the direction that was given by the District Judge in his earlier order passed on 10th December, 1987 appointing Shri Chandra Prakash Verma as the Commissioner to inspect the site appears to have been passed under Order 39, Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code . After the Commissioner had submitted his report after inspecting the site on 10th December, 1987 the District Judge should have passed an order after taking into consideration the said report. He should have passed an order for maintaining the status quo as disclosed in the report of the Commissioner. After the Commissioner had submitted his report after inspecting the site on 10th December, 1987 the District Judge should have passed an order after taking into consideration the said report. He should have passed an order for maintaining the status quo as disclosed in the report of the Commissioner. But the District Judge could not pass an order which had the effect of transferring the possession of the property from the hands of the petitioner to the Commissioner and permitting the Commissioner to take possession of the said property during to pendency of the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code submitted by the petitioner. The aforesaid direction which was given by the District Judge in his subsequent order passed on 10th December 1987 which was continued by him in his subsequent orders cannot, therefore be upheld. 8. As regards the submission of Shri Mehta that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, it may be stated that the submission made by Shri Mehta with regard to conduct of the petitioner on the ground of fraud having been exercised by the petitioner in obtaining an exparte decree cannot be accepted because the said conduct is still the subject matter the enquiry in the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code which are pending before the District Judge. At this stage no opinion can be expressed by this Court on the merits of these proceedings and, therefore on the basis of the said conduct the petitioner cannot be denied his right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article (sic 'section') 115 Civil Procedure Code . 9. In the result, the revision petition are allowed and the direction gives by the District Judge, Kota in his order dated 10th December, 1987 to the effect that the possession of the property shall remains with the Commissioner which direction has been continued in the subsequent orders dated 11th December, 1987. 15th December, 1987, 16th December, 1987 and 17th December 1987 is set aside and it is directed that the possession of the property should be restored into the same condition as it was on 10th December, 1987 prior to the giving of the aforesaid direction. 15th December, 1987, 16th December, 1987 and 17th December 1987 is set aside and it is directed that the possession of the property should be restored into the same condition as it was on 10th December, 1987 prior to the giving of the aforesaid direction. The record may be returned to the District Judge, immediately for decision on the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge on 8th February for further proceedings.Petition allowed. *******