Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by Additional district Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) rejecting petitioner's appeal for appointment of Commissioner for spot inspection. 3. The appellate court found that firstly such a request was never made by petitioner before trial court and secondly the petitioner has not been able to show any obligation on the part of court below to pass such an order and appellate court in its wisdom found that application submitted by petitioner is nothing but a device to delay the proceedings and to cover up the lapses in the court below. 4. It is well settled that under Order 26 Rule 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure the Court is not bound to appoint Commissioner on mere asking of parties but it is for the court when it found necessary to appoint Commissioner for some further investigation or information, it can do so. Power of the court to appoint Commissioner is not disputed but it is not the legal right of parties to force the court to appoint Commissioner. A local inspection, whether necessary or not, depends on several facts, factors and circumstances which have been considered by the court below and in absence of anything to show that court finds it necessary to obtain Commissioner's report, such appointment cannot be forced. 5. Considering the aforesaid provisions a Special Bench of this Court in The Sunni Central Board Vs. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, 2010 ADJ 1 (SFB) in the judgement delivered by (Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.) in paras 3749 and 3750 observed that a discretion is vested in the Court. When it is of the opinion that any local inspection or scientific investigation is required, it can order accordingly so as to help it in extracting truth. This shows that appointment of Commissioner for local inspection is not a matter of right or matter of course but it is for the Court to satisfy itself whether it is so required to extract the truth or not. If in its opinion it is not so required it cannot be compelled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on this Court's decision in Jagat Narain Jain Vs. The IV Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1982 ARC 296, Dr. If in its opinion it is not so required it cannot be compelled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on this Court's decision in Jagat Narain Jain Vs. The IV Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1982 ARC 296, Dr. K.C. Tandon Vs. IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 1998(1) ARC 589 and Dwarika Nath Soni Vs. Bhagwan Das Gupta, 2003(1) ARC 418. 7. In Jagat Narain Jain (supra) the Court has observed that the Prescribed Authority or Appellate Authority have power to appoint Commissioner for local inspection. The aforesaid power is not to be exercised as a matter of course but after considering various facts and circumstances and applying its mind whether such inspection is necessary or not. 8. In Dr. K.C. Tandon (supra) again the above observations have been reiterated and the Court has further made certain observations of caution that experience has shown that during pendency of appeals under Section 22 of the Act quite often applications are moved for making local inspection or for issuing Commission for local inspection with an oblique motive to delay the hearing of appeal which otherwise is required to be decided within six months and usually arguments are not advanced on merits but there is an insistence to pass order on such applications first before proceeding further in the matter of appeal. The Court observed that unless arguments are advanced on merits it would be difficult to understand and appreciate as to whether a local inspection is necessary or not for extracting the truth and, therefore, an approach should be to address the Court on merits so as to enable it to form an opinion whether local inspection is necessary or not to extract the truth. In para 8 of the judgment the Court observed as under: "8. Experience has shown that during the pendency of appeals under Section 22 of the Act, quite often applications are moved for making local inspections or for issuing Commission for local investigation with an oblique motive to delay the hearing of the appeal which otherwise is required to be decided within six months from the date of its presentation as provided under sub-rule (7) of Rule 7. Not only this, usually arguments on merits of the case are not advanced and there is insistence to pass order on such applications first before proceeding further in the matter of hearing of appeal. Not only this, usually arguments on merits of the case are not advanced and there is insistence to pass order on such applications first before proceeding further in the matter of hearing of appeal. I fall to understand how an" appellate authority could decide the question whether the ends of justice necessitate issuance of Commission or making of local inspection, unless it had the occasion of hearing arguments of both the sides, so that it could apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case and to the real question in controversy between the parties. It is only after the material on record is scrutinised by the authority in the light of the various contentions advanced by the parties or their counsel, that the authority can effectively answer the question whether or not Commission for investigation be issued or local inspection be made. There is neither any provision in the Act nor in the rules which may require the appellate authority to pass orders on such applications first before hearing arguments in the appeal. Therefore, in my opinion, the proper course for the appellate authority in such matters is to take up such applications and appeal for hearing together and it is not essential that such applications are to be heard and decided separately before hearing arguments in appeal. When this type of applications are heard along with the appeal, then only it will be possible for the appellate authority to take a just decision whether ends of justice require local investigation by Commission or local inspection by the authority. If after hearing arguments in appeal and on applications for issuing Commission, etc., the authority finds the necessity of issuing Commission or making of local inspection, it may so order and postpone the hearing to a future date. But if it finds otherwise, it may pronounce the judgment and reject the applications either by separate orders or in the judgment itself. This procedure will also help in discouraging scrupulous litigants to move such motivated applications solely with a view to prolong the proceeding to its maximum and will also be helpful for the appellate authority to reach to a just decision in the case. In the present case, appeal was fixed for hearing and disposal on 23.10.1997. On this date, instead of advancing arguments in appeal, two applications were moved from the petitioner's side. In the present case, appeal was fixed for hearing and disposal on 23.10.1997. On this date, instead of advancing arguments in appeal, two applications were moved from the petitioner's side. We are not concerned with the orders passed on these applications in view of this Court's order dated 11.11.97 which has been already indicated in the earlier part of this order. It further appears that on the same day, an oral prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner for issuing Commission for local investigation which was refused by the authority below in the impugned order." 9. The above observations, in my view, goes against the very substance of argument advanced by petitioner instead of helping him. 10. In Dwarika Nath Soni (supra) the Court also relied on the decision in Dr. K.C. Tandon (supra) and has observed that a local inspection is not a right of the party but is in the discretion of Court. However, in the facts of that case this Court recorded a finding that local inspection ought to have been made and, therefore, passed order accordingly. The decision having been delivered on its own facts, hence does not help the petitioner in any manner. 11. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his argument on the application for local inspection and this Court find no reason for the same. 12. In view of above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. _