JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Rajsamand by which application filed by the respondent for appointment of Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. was allowed to ascertain the correct position of the site in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order suffers from material irregularity because no order can be passed to collect evidence in favour a party. Further, it is pointed out that the site inspection report prepared by the municipality is on record upon which the trial Court can rely but, contrary to the basic principle of law, the trial Court passed an order for appointment of Commissioner to ascertain correct position of the site which is not permissible according to law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of this Court reported in 2012(1) DNJ (Raj.) 161, Prem Ratan v. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. judgment of this Court reported in 1997 DNJ (Raj.) 45, Smt. Vimla Sharma v. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies; and, submits that order impugned is illegal. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned, so also, judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the order impugned, the trial Court observed that there is no documentary evidence on record whereby clear picture of the site for which suit for permanent injunction has been filed can be ascertained. Therefore, it is felt necessary by the Court upon application filed by the respondents for appointment of Commissioner because site report is necessary in the case. 6. In my opinion, upon the fact as the present case when the Court observed in the order that there is no documentary evidence on record to ascertain the correct position of the site, then, obviously there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are completely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******