JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Heard. 2. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 7.11.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana, who dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for the reasons given in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order, which read as under :- "3. I have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire judicial file with their able assistance. The ld. counsel for the defendant/applicant argued that local Commissioner is warranted by law as the dispute is basically regarding identity, location and measurement of respective properties. He has also given certain judgment in order to support his arguments. The ld. counsel for the applicant/defendant has cited Alark Singh v. Smt. Durga Devi and others, 1993(2) SLJ 1252 wherein Honble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that "Local investigation can be ordered at an early stage also depends upon nature of controversy involved in the suit - If the dispute is simply in respect of identification, location and measurement of land or premise or object, which can be best ascertained on the spot instead of adducing evidence, local investigation should be ordered at an early stage". The ld. counsel for the applicant/defendant has also cited Mahnedranath Parida v. Purnananda Parida, 1983 Civil Court Cases 79 (Orissa), Civil Revision No. 451 of 1986, D/3.9.1987, wherein the Honble Orissa High Court held that "Local Commissioner - where the controversy is as to identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or object - local investigation should be done at an early stage." The various judgment cited by the ld. counsel for the applicant/defendant cannot be considered because in the present case the matter is not just regarding identification or measurement of the respective property. From the perusal of the case file it is quite clear that the property regarding which local Commissioner is asked to be appointed is very much part of the property in dispute and it is not correct that the land in dispute had no co-relation or concern with the land purchased by the defendant No. 4 and 5. Moreover the applicant/defendants are free to defend themselves on the basis of evidence which they would adduce in the course of time. 4. Moreover the applicant/defendants are free to defend themselves on the basis of evidence which they would adduce in the course of time. 4. I have fortified my opinion on the basis of judgment delivered by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Kehar Singh, 1997(1) Civil Court Cases 115 (P&H) , wherein Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that "Possession - Question is to be determined by the Court - Such a question cannot be left on the local Commissioner". In another case Charanjit Singh v. Sikattar Singh, 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 143 (P&H), the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that "local Commissioner cannot be appointed to report as to which of the party is in possession of the house in dispute because it would amount to delegate the power of court to determine the real issue in the case." 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the impugned order. I do not find any perversity or impropriety in the same. Hence this revision is dismissed. Any opinion formulated by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana in the impugned order will not effect the merits of the case. Revision dismissed.