JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Opposite Parties 1 to 9, as Plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 407 of 2004-1 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore, inter alia, praying for declaration of their right, title & interest over the suit schedule lands & for permanent injunction as well as for mandatory injunction for removing the boundary wall constructed by the Petitioner, who is the Defendant in the suit. The Plaintiffs also filed a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC (hereinafter called as "the Code") praying to issue ad interim injunction & also a petition under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code with a prayer to depute a Survey Knowing Commissioner. The Court below allowed the petition & deputed a Commissioner to cause local enquiry. The said order was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3813 of 2005 by Defendant, mainly on the ground that the appointment of Survey Knowing Commissioner before the Defendant entered appearance in the suit was not justified. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, mainly on the ground that the Defendant had not appeared till then & had not filed her written statement. This Court observed that deputing a Survey Knowing Commissioner before appearance of the Defendant was pre-mature. However, this Court permitted the parties to file a petition under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code, if exigencies arise. Thereafter, it appears, the Defendant appeared & fried her written statement denying the allegations made & taking a stand that no construction had been made by her over the disputed plot. While the matter stood thus, another petition was fried by the Plaintiff under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code with a prayer to depute a Survey Knowing Commissioner to make local investigation over 'Kha' schedule plaint properties & to answer the following questions. 1. Whether the 'Kha' Schedule disputed land mentioned in the plaint is the part & parcel of M.S. Plot No. 484? 2. Whether the 'Kha' Schedule land is used as only abutting road of the Plaintiffs to go to the public main road? 3. Whether there is any construction standing over the 'Kha' Schedule land? If so, the Commissioner will answer the nature of such construction & it's length, breadth, height of such construction. 4. 2. Whether the 'Kha' Schedule land is used as only abutting road of the Plaintiffs to go to the public main road? 3. Whether there is any construction standing over the 'Kha' Schedule land? If so, the Commissioner will answer the nature of such construction & it's length, breadth, height of such construction. 4. The Commissioner will show the alleged construction, if any, over the suit land in his local investigation map as well as the field book. 5. Whether any obstruction or any boundary wall is standing over the 'Kha' Schedule land of the plaint? 2. The Defendant filed objection to the said petition & resisted the engagement of Commissioner, mainly, on the ground that the questions raised can be proved by adducing witnesses & that for the purpose of determination of the real controversy between the parties, the proposed questions were not relevant & that the petition was a pre-mature one. 3. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties at length & analyzing the materials available, by Order Dated 6.3.2009 allowed the petition filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code & deputed a Survey Knowing Commissioner at the cost of the Plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Defendant has approached this Court once again. 4. Mr. Baug, Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant-Petitioner forcefully submitted that the Trial Court lost sight of the legal proposition that the Court should not procure evidence to prove a case of either of the party. It is stated that in the case in hand, no witness has been examined as yet, thus, allowing a petition to depute Survey Knowing Commissioner, before commencement of the oral evidence, amounts to irregular exercise of power by the Court. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Prasanta Kumar Jena Vs. Choudhury Purna Ch. Das Adhikari. Mr. Baug submitted that an application under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code should be considered only after closure of the evidence & only when the Court finds it difficult to pass an effective decree on the existing evidence & as such, deputing a Commissioner by the Court below, before commencement of the evidence was not justified. 5. The submissions made by Mr. Baug are resisted by Mr. Mohanty, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. According to Mr. 5. The submissions made by Mr. Baug are resisted by Mr. Mohanty, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. According to Mr. Mohanty, by constructing a boundary wall over the disputed plot, the access to the plots belonging to the Plaintiffs has been blocked, consequently, immense difficulty is being caused to the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that in the written statement though the Defendant admitted the fact of such construction, but then took the stand that the same was not made over the suit schedule plot. Under such circumstances, for effectual adjudication of the inter se dispute a Survey Knowing Commissioner has to be deputed & the Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction & the order may not be varied. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the inter se pleadings as well as the impugned order. The appointment of Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code is always a discretion of the Court & depends on the facts & circumstances of each case. In course of adjudication of a suit, if any Court feels that'loqal investigation is very much required for proper appreciation of the evidence or for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute, the Court may issue Commission to make such investigation as deemed necessary & report to the Court. In ordinary course, the Trial Court deputes Commissioner for legal investigation to appreciate the evidence already on record. But then, there can be a departure from the normal rule. In a suit where after going through the pleadings, the Court is of the opinion that for appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, it is necessary to know the field position, it may depute a Commissioner to make local investigation & submit a report. Such exigencies may arise where it is to be found as to on which plot the disputed land lies or construction exists & if felt necessary, a Commissioner can be deputed even though no evidence is recorded, particularly if the Court is satisfied that the parties themselves cannot produce evidence to that effect. See: Mahendranath Parida Vs. Purnananda Parida and Others, . 7. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence, which can be produced in Court, but to obtain evidence which from its nature can only be had from local inspection of the spot. See: Mahendranath Parida Vs. Purnananda Parida and Others, . 7. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence, which can be produced in Court, but to obtain evidence which from its nature can only be had from local inspection of the spot. The purpose of local inspection by a survey Knowing Commissioner is also to elucidate a point which becomes doubtful on the evidence taken before the Court. The case involving boundary disputes & disputes relating to identification of land are instances where the Court is required to depute for local investigation. It is well settled that the report of the Commission is only one of the piece of evidence amongst other evidence to be led by the parties for determination of the issue involved in the suit. In the case of Debendranath Nandi Vs. Natha Bhuiyan this Court has observed that Order 26, Rule 9 empowers the Court to depute a Civil Court Commissioner for local, investigation if it is deemed proper & in all cases, it cannot be presumed that the same was meant to collect evidence on behalf of a party. 8. Now coming to the case in hand, as would be evident from the petition filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code & the questions framed therein, which have been quoted in extenso in paragraph-1 (supra), the dispute as to whether plaint 'Kha' schedule land is part & parcel of M.S. Plot No. 484 & as to whether there is any construction standing over the said land are questions which can be resolved only if the Survey Knowing Commissioner is deputed to measure the lands & identify the position thereof. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity & the conclusions arrived at are just & proper. But then, it appears that the Trial Court has not waited till commencement of oral evidence. In the aforesaid contingency, this Court while upholding the direction of the Trial Court to depute a Commissioner, directs that the Commissioner be deputed after closure of the oral evidence by the parties, so that the Court shall have a clear picture of the entire case before it. If necessary, the Court may also formulate some other points which need to be answered by the Commissioner along with the points already formulated by the Plaintiffs. If necessary, the Court may also formulate some other points which need to be answered by the Commissioner along with the points already formulated by the Plaintiffs. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.