TIWARI, M.—This is a revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 16.4.10 of Assistant Collector Phalodi (Jodhpur). 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the revision are that during pendency of a revenue suit between the rival parties for declaration of khatedari rights and grant of injunction, an application under Section 212 of the Act for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. During course of hearing of the application for the grant of temporary injunction, the petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for appointment of commissioner to ascertain the factum of possession on the disputed site. Assistant Collector dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 16.4.10, aggrieved against which the instant revision petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are in actual possession of the disputed land on which they have also built their residential huts. This fact of possession is necessary to be brought to the knowledge of the trial court so as to reach correct conclusion with regard to the actual possession on the disputed site. But Assistant Collector has casually dismissed the application without any application of mind. As such the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contention of the petitioners, perused the impugned order and gone through the material on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 16.4.10 of Assistant Collector Phalodi shows that he has dismissed the application for appointment of commissioner to collect information with regard to possession on the disputed land mainly on the ground that it is for the parties to prove possession on the disputed land. Assistant Collector did not deem it proper to obtain the report of the Commissioner with regard to possession on the disputed land. It has consistently been held by this court as well as Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court that appointment of a commission to ascertain possession over any disputed land is unjustified and unnecessary as parties themselves have to adduce evidence and prove the disputed fact of possession. An evidence of possession cannot be got collected through the agency of the court or court appointed commissioner. An evidence of possession cannot be got collected through the agency of the court or court appointed commissioner. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has clearly pronounced in its judgment on `Union of India vs. M/s. Kripal Industries as reported in 1998(2) WLC (Raj.) 396 = RLW 1998(2) Raj. 773 that the disputed fact of possession can only be adjudicated upon by the court after framing necessary issue and recording evidence of the parties; assistance of commissioner for such purpose is neither necessary nor justified. Further Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1506 that appointing a commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC for collecting evidence with regard to possession and position of the disputed land is not proper. It is for the parties to submit relevant evidence and documents to prove their contention. This court has also held in 2009 RRD 108 = RLW 2009(1) RJ 63, 2002 RRD 741 = RLW 2002 RJ 568, 2009(1) RRT 530 and 2010 RBJ 55 that appointment of commissioner for ascertaining possession over the disputed land is not warranted in deciding a dispute relating to grant of any kind of injunction. 7. In light of above discussion it is evident that Assistant Collector Phalodi has neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor committed and illegality nor done any material irregularity in dismissing the application of Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC. Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 8. Resultantly, the revision stands dismissed in limine. Pronounced.