1. This motion of revision is aimed at revising the order passed by learned Munsiff Bandipora dated: 04-08-2001, on an application for issuance an appropriate direction in the name of Revenue Authorities for the inspection and demarcation of the suit land. 2. It appears that a suit for perpetual injunction came to be instituted by plaintiff/petitioner before the court of learned Munsiff Bandipora to the effect that the respondents/defendants be permanently restrained to interfere in his possession in respect of land measuring 8 kanals comprising of Survey No.1436 located at Onehgam Sonagam tehsil Bandipora, claiming therein that he is in peaceful possession of the said land in the capacity of an owner and the defendants/respondents without any right whatsoever, are bent upon to interfere in his possession in respect of the said land. The respondents/defendants have resisted the suit by filing their written statement, wherein, they have denied the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land and have claimed the respondent No.1 in its possession. During the pendency of the suit, when issues were yet to be framed, the respondent No.1 defendant came to approach the trial court with the prayer for issuance of appropriate orders in the name of Revenue Authorities for the spot inspection and demarcation of the land. It is pursuant to this application, the court below came to appoint Nazir of his court and Patwari of the concerned Halqa as Commissioners with the direction to ascertain and demarcate the suit land and to report about the actual position existing on spot. 3. The stand of Mr. Khan, appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff is that commissioner cannot be appointed in the case with an object to collect evidence of one of the parties in the suit. The question of possession which is the material issue in the case has to be proved before the court and it cannot be determined on the basis of inspection report of the commissioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr., Qadri, appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned order of the learned trial court by stating that the trial court is possessed of absolute powers to issue a commission to any person to whom he thinks fit for elucidating any matter in dispute in a suit. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Order 26 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Order 26 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977 (1920 A.D.) envisages that: In any suit in which the court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidation 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: Provided that, where the Government has made rules as to the persons to whom commission shall be issued, the court shall be bound by such rules.� 6. From the bare reading of this rule, it is manifestly clear that a court in a pending suit before it has a discretion to issue a commission to such person to whom it deems fit for elucidating any dispute in between the parties, but such discretion cannot be exercised in a case where the point of dispute which is referred to the Commissioner can be conveniently substantiated by the parties by leading their evidence before the court at the trial of the suit. The court cannot delegate its judicial functions of trial of any material issue in a suit which the court itself is bound to try. The object of this rule is not to assist a party to collect evidence, where the party can get the evidence itself before the court, but to obtain evidence for elucidating the matters which are local in character. The power under this rule is conferred on the court to appoint commission for local inspection in order that it may appreciate the evidence which has already come on record. In the background of this law and on examination of the record it is found that the suit pending in between the parties before the court below is in its initial stage in which there is a dispute in between the parties about the possession of the suit land which can be properly adjudicated by the court after framing all necessary issues in the suit and after recording the evidence of the parties. For such a purpose, the appointment of commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. For such a purpose, the appointment of commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977 (1920 A.D.) is neither justified nor proper. More-over no such specific request for appointment of commissioner has been made by the respondent in his application pursuant to which the impugned order for appointment of commissioner came to be passed by the court below. Viewed thus, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error and material irregularity, if allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice. Therefore, the motion of revision is accepted and the impugned order of the appointment of commissioner recorded by the court below on 04-08-2001 is hereby set aside. No costs. Record of the case be returned to the learned trial court along with the copy of this order, where the learned counsel for the parties are directed to cause their appearance on 26-02-2002.