JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order dated 15.5.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) Nokha District Bikaner by which he rejected the application to appoint a commissioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion the petitioner had filed a revision petition against an order refusing to allow the cross-examination of the commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code and also for cross-examination of the opposite party on the affidavits. The matter was decided in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 842/99 on 1.4.1999 and looking to the facts and circumstances it was directed that the petitioner would be free to move a fresh application for appointment of commissioner. When the petitioner moved application, the same has been rejected without reference to even the earlier order of the High Court. He submitted that it was necessary to appoint a commissioner in the suit. It has been submitted that other shopkeepers have put their goods in front of their shops and have also constructed racks for the purpose. It has been submitted that it is to be looked by the commissioner as to what is the width of the road or weather the road is obstructed as the same not been disclosed in the earlier report of the commissioner. 4. The facts of the case that Sham Lal filed a suit against the petitioner in which it has been averred that Ram Kishan had obstructed path in front of the shops by putting an almirah 4'X4'X10' and the same be removed. An application for temporary injunction was also filed in which a commissioner was appointed who submitted report dated 12.9.1997. According to the petitioner the commissioner had not given the details and hence he has proved for issuance of a fresh commissioner in view of the order of the High Court. 5. These arguments are repelled by the learned counsel for the respondents submitting that the court in AIR 1998 Rajasthan page 224, Union of India and another v. M/s. Kripal Industries , has held that appointment of a commissioner for making enquiry about the fact of possession of property in dispute was improper as the same can be adjudicated upon by framing issues and recording evidence. The purpose of appointment of commissioner is not to collect the evidence which is basically a duty of party to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents cited Shri M.L. Shethi v. Shri R.P. Kaptur, AIR 1972 Supreme Court page 2379, in which it has been held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code is if limited one and the section is not directed against the conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. It lay down that Section 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on these three matters it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusion of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law. A distinction must be drawn between the errors committed by subordinate court in deciding questions of law which have relation to or are concerned with questions of jurisdiction of the said court and errors of law which have no such relation or connection. An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to questions of jurisdictions of that court cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115. 6. Of course Hon'ble R.R. Yadav, J. on 1.4.1999 in S.B. Civil Revision No. 842/99 gave liberty to move fresh application in the original civil suit for appointment of commissioner, but that would not mean that if the application is decided against the petitioner that decision would not be challenged. 7. I have seen the order of learned Civil Judge and I do not find airy illegality or jurisdictional error in the order. Provisions of Order 26 Civil Procedure Code cannot be used for the purpose of collecting evidence to be adduced in the suit. 8. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed. 7. I have seen the order of learned Civil Judge and I do not find airy illegality or jurisdictional error in the order. Provisions of Order 26 Civil Procedure Code cannot be used for the purpose of collecting evidence to be adduced in the suit. 8. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******