JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 16.7.2012 passed by the Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Pindwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/2012 whereby application filed under Order 39 Rule 7, C.P.C. by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit against the present petitioner for permanent injunction narrating therein that in village Bawari Sarupganj there is land situated in Khasra Nos. 1421/2005 and 1423/2006 rakba 6 biswa and 2 biswa in the name of his father. The said land was converted on 1.6.1992 for residential purpose. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed by the respondent-plaintiff and petitioner filed application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 for inspecting the site by the Commissioner. 3. Learned trial Court after receiving reply from the plaintiff-respondent rejected the application so filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 7, C.P.C. on the ground that the purpose of filing the application is to collect evidence in his favour which is not permissible in law. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason given by the trial Court is totally erroneous because request was made by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner only to inspect the site, therefore, the order impugned is not in consonance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment reported in 2010(1) DNJ 343 (Raj.) and submits that the purpose of Order 39 Rule 7, C.P.C. is to maintain, preserve and inspect the subject-matter of the suit proper, therefore, the trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is totally illegal and in contravention of the basic principles of law, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned, so also, considered entire facts of the case. 6. The petitioner-defendant by way of filing reply to the suit submitted that he is in possession of the land in question. He has furnished certain photographs to show that he is in possession. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned, so also, considered entire facts of the case. 6. The petitioner-defendant by way of filing reply to the suit submitted that he is in possession of the land in question. He has furnished certain photographs to show that he is in possession. In my opinion, the reasoning given by the trial Court that purpose of filing application under Order 39 Rule 7, C.P.C. in this particular case is only to collect evidence in favour of the petitioner-defendant, therefore, such application deserves to be rejected and both the parties are required to adduce their respective evidence to prove the factum of possession. In my opinion, the finding given by the trial Court for rejecting the application does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 7. With regard to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in 2010(1) DNJ 343 (Raj.), it was rendered by this Court in a case in which the controversy was altogether different because the order was passed by the co-ordinate Bench for appointment of Commissioner to ascertain the latest position of mining. But, here, in this case, the facts are altogether different. 8. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned in this writ petition.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******