Judgment : .1. The above revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners before the trial Court challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 211. 1995 in I.A.No.450 of 1995 in O.S.No.231 of 1995, whereunder the application filed under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit items 1 and 20 and note the physical features that may be pointed out at the time of inspection and to file a report, came to be rejected. The case of the applicants before the Court below was that the second respondent has filed a counter stating that he has stored black metal etc. in the suit items 1 and 20 and it belongs to him, that the said materials used for building purpose and construction absolutely belonged to the plaintiffs, that .such materials came to be stored by the plaintiffs long back and that the nature and condition and position of the materials will clearly reveal how old they are and what time it was stored. It is, therefore, to ascertain the abovesaid fact, according to the petitioners, the only way is to make a local inspection and it requires appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect and submit a report and the respondents will not be prejudiced by doing so. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the object of filing such an application is only to drag on the proceedings and to prevent the respondents from enjoying suit items 1 and 20 and that there is no necessity for the appointment of a Commissioner since the respondents admitted that heaps of bricks and black metal are stored in the suit item No.2 contrary to the sale in favour of the second respondent. According to this counter-affidavit, the materials belonged to the first respondent, who sold and handed over the same to the second respondent along with the said item sold in his favour. It is stated further in the counter affidavit that the first respondent himself has admitted the same in the counter affidavit filed by him to the petition for temporary injunction and that, at any rate, the materials do not belong to the petitioners and since the existence of the materials is admitted, there is no need for the appointment of a Commissioner. 3. 3. The counsel for the first respondent appears to have filed a memo adopting the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent in the Court below. 4. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the view that the request for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner need not be countenanced since the existence of the materials on the site in question is an admitted fact and therefore, there was no justification for the appointment of any Commissioner. Hence, the above revision. .5. Mr Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to Rule 90 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 14, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to contend that the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside for the omission on the part of the learned Judge in the Court below to formulate an issue or point and render its decision thereon. Argued the learned counsel further that by the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to notice the factum of deposit of materials and submit a report therefor, no prejudice will be caused to the other side and that the appointment, if made, would help the plaintiffs to ensure that no construction is put up later to the detriment of the rights of the plaintiffs. .6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, there is absolutely no merit in the challenge made to the order of the Court below. I have gone through the order and the affidavit filed by the petitioners in the Court below and the counter-affidavit filed therefor. The order sets out the contentions of both parties and assigns sufficient reasons for the rejection and it cannot be said that it is not an effective disposal of the application and the claim made therein on merits. The only technical objection raised to question the legality of the order is the reliance placed on Rule 90 of the Civil Rules of Practice which states that the judgment and final order in matters other than suits or appeal including contested interlocutory applications, execution petitions and execution applications should be in the same manner as the judgment and decree in a suit. Having regard to the same, the learned counsel refers to Order 14, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that issues arise when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other and each of such material propositions affirmed by one and denied by the other shall from the subject of a distinct issue. In view of Order 20, Rule 5, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the proceedings. In my view, the challenge is misconceived and the reference to the above provisions are inappropriate to the case of the nature in question. Rule 90 of the Civil Rules of Practice by the very nature of the provisions will have application only to cases other than suits wherein substantial issue of fact or law affecting the rights of parties on merits even at the interlocutory state is involved and not to the case of the nature wherein only question for consideration is, whether the request for appointment of Commissioner is justified or not. The justification or otherwise of the request, as noticed supra, has been considered at considerable length and sufficient reasons have been assigned to reject the same. The formulation of an issue as also the need and necessity to so formulate an issue will arise only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other party. I fail to see as to how such a contingency arises in a matter like this warranting formulation of a separate issue justifying the need for independent recording of views with reasons on such issue separately. 7. The other submission of the learned counsel that the other side will not be prejudiced by the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner and that it will help to ensure that no construction is made to the detriment of the rights of the plaintiffs, is not a tenable one. The question of appointment of a Commissioner does not depend upon merely whether any prejudice will be caused to the other side or not. The question of appointment of a Commissioner does not depend upon merely whether any prejudice will be caused to the other side or not. Instead, there should be sufficient basis and justification as also an effective need and an appointment of Commissioner cannot be sought for or obtained as a matter of course and that too to achieve an ulterior object or motive. In this case, if the object and purport of the petitioners plaintiffs is to ascertain the factum of deposit of materials on the site, that factum stood admitted by the respondents in the Court below and there is no dispute or controversy over the same. If the object of the plaintiffs is to use the Commissioner to be appointed to project or prove his claim of ownership of the materials deposited on the land, the claim is thoroughly a misconceived one and there cannot be any appointment of Commissioner for such purpose, since ownership of the materials has to be proved otherwise than through report of the Commissioner. Equally the appointment of Commissioner cannot be availed of to ensure that there is no construction put up during the pendency of the proceedings, when it is not even the case of the plaintiffs that the construction is already in progress and on the contrary, the common case appears to be as disclosed from the materials placed before this Court that the land is only vacant. If the object of the petitioners is to ensure that the respondents do not put up any construction, he should, if at all, try to get an order of injunction and this cannot be achieved by a short circuit method of getting such orders by seeking for the appointment of a Commissioner. In my view, the application appears to be not only frivolous but a misconceived one with no genuine motive. The learned Judge in the Court below was well justified in rejecting the such an application. I do not see any patent error of law or failure to exercise any jurisdiction by the Court below in rejecting the application. The revision, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. Consequently, CMP. Nos. 3803 and 3804 of 1996 are dismissed.