V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this Civil Revision petition against the order dated 23-6-2000 made in IA. No. 1274 of 1999 in O. S. No. 18 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil judge, Warangal in dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under order 26 Rules 9 and 10-A read with section 151 CPC for appointment of a commissioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit. He filed the suit against the respondents herein to declare the proceedings of the Superintending engineer, Sreeramsagar Project, construction Circle, Huzurabad dated 10-1-1992 in issuing final notice and the subsequent expulsion order dated 28-1-1992 as void and illegal, and to direct the respondents to pay the total claims quantified at Rs. 197. 36 lakhs. The suit filed by the petitioner is for settlement of his claim Nos. l to 10 mentioned in the plaint and for award of costs etc. ( 3 ) THE claims specifically stated in Para 3 of the plaint are extracted below: Claim No. Particulars of claims Claim Amounts Rs. in Lakhs. 1. Price adjustment/escalation bills payable to the plaintiff/ con tractor under Clause-34 of the Sec. 2, Vol. I of the Agreement. 30. 30 2. For payment of difference of amount for the C. C. Lining work done during the contract period pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 102, Dt. 9-2-90 and Supplement Agreement Dt. 4-5-1990. 5. 63 3. Payment for Additional work done "earth Work Excavation of Canal inner slopes for seating to C. C. Lining" executed by plaintiff between KM 5. 00 to 8. 00 of DBM-16. 1. 93 4. Compensation for SL 450 paver machinery procured for doing C. C. Lining work, kept idle due to illegal termination of contract. 32. 65 5. Refund of mineral rights tax (Cess) deducted from work bills. 0. 35 6. Assessment of damages for breach of contract based on estimated profits and over-heads. 114. 76 7. Compensation towards extra expenditure incurred on bank guarantee commission. 8. 35 8. For payment of extra transportation charges involved for transporting the cement from distant stores other than specified in the agreement. 0. 09 9. Claim for refund of earnest money deposit (Retention Money) 3. 30 10. Claim for interest on all the Claims Nos. 1 to 9 are to be worked out when claims are decided. 8. 35 8. For payment of extra transportation charges involved for transporting the cement from distant stores other than specified in the agreement. 0. 09 9. Claim for refund of earnest money deposit (Retention Money) 3. 30 10. Claim for interest on all the Claims Nos. 1 to 9 are to be worked out when claims are decided. Total amount of Claims 197. 36 ( 4 ) THE petitioner seeks to appoint a commissioner preferably a retired engineer-in-Chief or retired Chief Engineer or retired Superintending Engineer directing him to make such investigation/ enquiry to assess the damages/claims claimed in the above suit and to make report thereon, as the matter relates to the experience and ability and in view of the technical nature of the claims. It is further stated that unless the commissioner is appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the damages in respect of the claims, it is diffkult to prove the claims with oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court considered the said application and dismissed the same, against which, this crp is filed. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was awarded a contract in respect of the work of "cement concrete lining to distributaries from DBM - 7b to DBM - 30 of Kakatiya Canal of sreeramsagar Project". The estimated value of the work is Rs. 9,21,99,314. 00 and the agreement value is Rs. 8,31,10,514. 00. As per the agreement, the work has to be completed within 36 months. As the work could not be executed as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement , after following due procedure, final notice was issued, and subsequently, expulsion order was also made expelling the contractor from the site of the work and measurements of the work done by the petitioner has been taken; and after following due procedure, balance work was entrusted to another Agency; and the entire work has been completed even before filing of the suit. As per the agreement, for the settlement of his claims, the petitioner filed the suit claiming damages, as the claimssabove Rs. 50,000. 00 have to be decided in a regular civil suit by a Civil Court. ( 6 ) THE claims claimed by the petitioner have to be proved by oral and documentary evidence in a regular trial, but cannot be left to the discretion of a Commissioner permitting him to perform the functions of the Court. 50,000. 00 have to be decided in a regular civil suit by a Civil Court. ( 6 ) THE claims claimed by the petitioner have to be proved by oral and documentary evidence in a regular trial, but cannot be left to the discretion of a Commissioner permitting him to perform the functions of the Court. The application is filed under order 26 Rules 9 and 10-A CPC. As per rule 9, in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Rule 10-A also contemplates that where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot,-in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that any local inspection has to be made by the Commissioner in respect of the left over work or there is any dispute with regard to the work done by the petitioner. The work done by the petitioner is a matter of record recorded in the relevant registers by the Department and also the subject- matter of the correspondence between the parties. The left over work has. been completed by another Agency; and the present condition of the work is in a completed stage; and therefore, the question of making any local inspection by a Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the work done by the petitioner does not arise. All the claims claimed by the petitioner have to be proved by adducing oral and documentary evidence in a regular trial, and the Court cannot delegate its function to a Commissioner/engineer. Under the contract, the claims are not to be settled by way of arbitration, but have to be settled in a regular civil suit. All the claims claimed by the petitioner have to be proved by adducing oral and documentary evidence in a regular trial, and the Court cannot delegate its function to a Commissioner/engineer. Under the contract, the claims are not to be settled by way of arbitration, but have to be settled in a regular civil suit. The petitioner indirectly seeks to achieve the object of deciding the claims by way of arbitration, i. e. through a Commissioner, which cannot be permitted under the contract, as the court alone has to decide the same. The trial Court rightly held that the petitioner- plaintiff has to prove all his claims by filing appropriate bills by adducing oral and documentary evidence, and for that purpose, no Commissioner need to be appointed. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Supreme court in Rajinder and Co. vs. Union of India and others, submits that in a given case, a commissioner can be appointed. That case relates to the appointment of a commissioner for inspecting the site and to measure the work done by the respondent therein and to file a report. In the instant case, the work done by the petitioner cannot be determined by the Commissioner, as the incomplete work has been completed by some other Agency, and therefore, the same has to be proved by oral and documentary evidence, but not by the Commissioner. ( 8 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any illegality or any irregularity in the order of the Court below in dismissing the application of the petitioner. The CRP is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.