JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Refusal to accept prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of a survey knowing Commissioner has brought the plaintiff before this Court. 2. The revision application has been filed in the following back- ground. Petitioner as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 325 of 1987 in the Court of learned Munsif, Puri, for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the disputed properties. According to the plaintiff, he has got his residential double storied building in the suit land and the defendant is putting up a structure close to the said building affecting the plinth and there is likelihood of interference with the carnish of the plaintiff in the upper storey ; such situation has arisen because the defendant has constructed the plinth of his building under construction at three sides on his own area lying to the south of the suit land; encroached upon the suit land by making constructions on a portion of the suit wall, as well as on the plinth portion of the suit wall; there is encroachment by extension of a projection and the ultimate purpose of the defendant is to complete construction of the building illegally by utilising the suit wall. The basis indicated for the prayer for appointment of a survey knowing Commissioner is the necessity to find out the exact situation of the plinth and the wall, and to find out if there is encroachment by construction on the wall by the defendant, as well as to ascertain the length and breadth of the plinth and the wall. The motion was objected to by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff can very well prove the same through his witnesses if he so chooses, and lead evidence, there was no necessity of appointing any survey knowing Commissioner. The defendant also submitted that since the plaintiff claimed to be owner of the property in dispute, which according to him, was a part of the house, he was aware of the position and condition of the same and therefore, there was no necessity for assistance by a survey knowing Commissioner. The objection of the defendant found favour with the learned Munsif who rejected the motion on the ground that the plaintiff can very well prove the matter through his own witnesses and therefore, there was no necessity to depute a survey knowing Commissioner. 3. The objection of the defendant found favour with the learned Munsif who rejected the motion on the ground that the plaintiff can very well prove the matter through his own witnesses and therefore, there was no necessity to depute a survey knowing Commissioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the approach of the learned Munsif was erroneous and he has misconstrued the intent of the application The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, submits that there is nothing infirm in the reasoning given by the learned Munsif warranting interference by this Court. 4. A commission for local investigation pre-supposes the existence on record of independent evidence which requires to be elucidated. It is a matter of discretion of the Court to be used when the Court feels that there can be better appreciation of evidence by appointing a Commissioner. The nature of controversy here shows that a local investigation would facilitate the process of adjudication in the trial Though the plaintiff can bring the materials through his witnesses, more particularly by a private Commissioner, yet that should not deter a Court from directing appointment of a Commissioner if the ends of justice so warrant. This Court under apparently similar circumstances in 68 (1988) CLT 630 : Sanku Ranga Rao v. Devi Prasad Sahu and Anr., directed appointment of a Commissioner. As observed by this Court in 64 (1987) CLT 298 : The Municipal Council, Cuttack v. Smt. Rambhabati Devi, where the result of the case would substantially depend on the identification of the disputed property, deputation of a survey knowing Commissioner becomes desirable. The contention raised that if a party has a right and can adduce evidence of a survey knowing person engaged by him privately, it is open to the Court to decline to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation, did not find favour with this Court in Mahendranath Parida Vs. Purnananda Parida and Others. There are certain difficulties which arise when survey is undertaken because measurements have to be taken from various points, and for the purpose it may be required to enter upon the land and premises of the other party, which may be resisted and therefore, there only not be effective measurement to be of any assistance to the party taking help of a private person. On the other hand, a Commissioner appointed by the Court would not be confronted with such a situation. judged in this background, I am of the view that refusal of the learned Munsil was not justified. The impugned order is accordingly vacated. The trial Court is directed to take steps to appoint a suitable Commissioner. It shall be open to the learned Munsif to give such direction as are warranted in the circumstances of the case for proper adjudication of the dispute. The Civil Revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs.