JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajgarh, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application for appointment of the Commissioner filed by the respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2009 the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners for restraining them from taking into their possession and from raising construction over the land in dispute situated at village Bara, Tehsil Rajgarh, and also from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent. In the suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner. The Commissioner was duly appointed by the Court. He submitted his report on 03.11.2009. The petitioners filed objection for appointment of the Commissioner and also filed written statement and denied the contents of the suit. On 05.11.2009, the learned trial court passed an order to maintain status quo. Thereafter, on 29.01.2010, the plaintiff-respondent filed a contempt petition against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have flouted the order of status quo passed earlier. Along with contempt petition, the plaintiff-respondent also filed an application for appointment of the Commissioner. The petitioners filed reply to the contempt petition and denied the contents mentioned therein. The petitioners also filed reply to the application for appointment of the Commissioner stating therein that they have not made any construction as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent. Instead, the said construction was an old one and was in existence as on the date when the property was purchased. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 23.07.2010, the learned trial court appointed a Commissioner. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that since even on an earlier occasion a Commissioner was appointed who has submitted his report, there is no occasion for the court to appoint a second Commissioner. Secondly, since the petitioners have already raised their objections with regard to the veracity of the Commissioner's report submitted earlier, the second Commissioner should not have been appointed by the court. Thirdly, in the judgment of a previous suit, there is a judicial finding that the construction that exist on the land in dispute is an old one. Therefore, the appointment of the second Commissioner is illegal. 4. Thirdly, in the judgment of a previous suit, there is a judicial finding that the construction that exist on the land in dispute is an old one. Therefore, the appointment of the second Commissioner is illegal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that despite the status quo order passed by the learned court, still the defendants-petitioners have newly constructed on the said land. The petitioners are denying this fact. It is precisely because of this denial that the learned Judge in his wisdom has appointed a Commissioner to inspect the land in dispute. If, indeed, the construction is an old one, this Court fails to understand the anxiety of the petitioners. After all the Commissioner appointed by the court would point out the factual reality which exists in the land in dispute. Therefore, the anxiety of the petitioners is highly misplaced. The learned Judge is certainly within his power to appoint a Commissioner since both the parties disagree about the nature and the age of the construction; while the petitioners claim that the construction is an old one, the plaintiff-respondent claims that the construction is a new one. The reality of the age of the construction can only be discovered after the Commissioner's report has been submitted. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 23.07.2010 of appointment of the Commissioner. 6. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******