R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 4-12-1989 passed on LA. No, Nil in Original Suit No. 1344/1981 on the file of the learned City Civil judge, Bangalore, allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 26, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a qualified engineer as court Commissioner for valuation of the properties shown in the plaint schedule. ( 2 ) THE facts undisputed are : That the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent him to make use of a disputed passage in the suit schedule property. Later, the plaintiff has amended the plaint where she has sought for declaration, that the disputed passage form part of the suit property and it should be declared so. After allowing the said application, the plaint was amended and the Court-below while allowing the application gave an opportunity for the plaintiff to place materials in respect of additional Court-fee payable consequent to the amendment Accordingly, the matter was heard and the trial Court has ordered for the payment of additional court-fee of Rs. 200/- which was paid on 27-3-1986. ( 3 ) THERE after, the case was proceeded for recording the evidence and after the conclusion of the evidence the matter was posted for arguments. However, the learned Advocates are at variance in the submission. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it was at the stage of cross-examination of DW-2. After a series of adjournments, the defendant filed the application on 25-3-1989 for appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose, already narrated above. ( 4 ) SRI M. C. Ranganna, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has assailed the order of the trial Court on this application on several grounds. The principal ground is that the defendant with a view to protract the proceedings, has made this application which is legally unsustainable. The learned Advocate nextly submitted the question of payment of Court-fee was already determined when the application for amendment of pleadings was allowed by the trial Court and accordingly a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid towards enhanced Court-fee on 27-3-1986. The learned Advocate nextly submitted the question of payment of Court-fee was already determined when the application for amendment of pleadings was allowed by the trial Court and accordingly a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid towards enhanced Court-fee on 27-3-1986. It is nextly submitted that the payment of Court-fee being a matter between the plaintiff and the Court, defendant had no say to move the Court for this purpose when the matter is already been decided once for all and there is absolutely no scope for reopening the case when the learned Civil Judge had already held that the Court-fee of Rs. 200/- paid earlier was sufficient According to Mr. Ranganna, the trial Court has resorted to review its own order by a method of allowing application for appointment of a Commissioner to decide the question of payment of Court-fee once again. ( 5 ) SMT. Suguna, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the defendant have sought for appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the property now in dispute and the Court has rightly allowed the said application. Learned Advocate further submitted that since the order of the trial court in appointment of a Commissioner will not amount to the case decided, this court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the said order of the trial Court. ( 6 ) WE have narrated the facts of this case above which does not lead to any ambiguity. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction and later, the same was converted into a suit for declaration also. As per the directions of the Court, an additional court-fee of Rs. 200/- was paid on 27-3-1986 and the matter stood at that stage and evidence was recorded. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act:"in every suit instituted in any Court, the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials contained in the statement if any, filed under Section 10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subjected to review, further review, and correction in the manner specified in the sub-sections. Under sub-clause 3 if the defendant pleads that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient All submission be heard and decided by the Court before the evidence is recorded affecting such defendant on the merits of the claim, and if the Court finds that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall follow the procedure laid down in sub-section (2)". ( 8 ) IN accordance with Section 11 (3) the trial Court has already decided the Court-fee payable immediately after amendment of the plaint, and the fee was also collected by the Court. Hence, the Court lost its jurisdiction to reopen this matter once again. ( 9 ) NOW, with regard to the appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26, the Court is empowered to order tor the appointment of Commissioner for various proposes. Under Rule 9 a Court Commissioner for local investigations may be made for the purposes of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market values of any property or the amount of mesne profits or damages or annual net profits. ( 10 ) THE power of the Court in appointing the Commissioner for these purposes should be made before the commencement of the evidence or the settlement of the issues. In this case, the payment of Court-fee was already decided by the Court and hence the order of the trial Court in appointing a Commissioner once again for this purpose is legally unsustainable. ( 11 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in N. Kanna Reddy v B. Suguna, 3 981 (1) KLC 7. In this case, the appointment of a Commissioner was challenged before this Court. This Court formulated a point regarding jurisdiction: "whether the order appointing a Commissioner amounts to a case decided?" ( 12 ) THE Court after noting the case between Smt. Harvinder Kaur and Another v V. Godha Ram and Another, AIR 1979 P and H 76, has held at para 5. "in the instant case, instead of refusing the commission, it is allowed. That makes no difference. That cannot decide the rights or obligations of a party. Hence, it does not become revisable. "in the instant case, instead of refusing the commission, it is allowed. That makes no difference. That cannot decide the rights or obligations of a party. Hence, it does not become revisable. Besides, it cannot be said that it causes any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the other side because it has always the right to object to the Commissioner's report. It would be a piece of evidence at best as any other evidence. Hence, it cannot be said that an irreparable injury would be caused to the other side if the Commissioner reports after inspection. Hence, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the order in revision". ( 13 ) WITH respect, the observations made in the above case, applied to the factsand circumstances of that case alone. ( 14 ) IN this case, the question of Court-fee has been determined by the Court andit also directed the plaintiff to pay the additional Court-fee and the same was complied as early as 1986. When this being the case, the Court cannot appoint a commissioner to go into the same questions at this length of the period when, the case has almost reached a stage of conclusion. ( 15 ) AS submitted by Sri Ranganna, there are plethora of decisions where it is stated that the appointment of a Commissioner should be made before commencement of the evidences mostly. ( 16 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the trail Court for appointment of the Commissioner dated 4-12-1989 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the case as this matter is pending from 1981. The parties shall bear their own costs. --- *** --- .