JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the validity of order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) City, Jodhpur Metropolitan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two applications were filed by the respondent-plaintiff one for providing police aid to restrain the petitioner-defendants to raise construction in violation of the interim order passed by the trial Court and second for appointing Commission to obtain report of site. Further, it is submitted that trial Court cannot pass such type of order for appointment of Commissioner because it is ultimately an opportunity of create evidence in favour of plaintiff, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court for appointment of Commissioner is not sustainable in the law. 4. It is also submitted that what is the purpose for appointment of Commissioner when photographs are already produced on record and if there is any contravention of the order passed by the Court then obviously petitioners can be punished in the contempt proceedings, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting attention of this Court towards the judgment reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan 224 (Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Kripal Industries) passed in revision petition filed by the Union of India, also, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11178/2009 (Dhirendra Singh & Anr. v. Om Singh) dated 5.12.2009 submits that in the circumstances of the present case the appointment of Commissioner for obtaining site report is totally contrary to basic principles of law, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 6. It is true that earlier there was provision is in the C.P.C. for filing revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. for challenging the order passed upon application in the trial for different purpose, but after amendment in the C.P.C., such type of order is curtailed by the legislature and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of the cases held that said power of superdense can be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but put a rider that in a ordinary' course the Court should not exercise such power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. 7. Recently, in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , has held that the High Court should not interfere in the order passed upon application in ordinary course for proper adjudication of suit. 8. I have perused the order impugned and the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 9. in my opinion, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is having binding force under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, therefore, while following the judgment of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned, whereby, the Commissioner was appointed to obtain the correct position of site.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******