JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC for appointment of the Court Commissioner has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for permanent injunction while alleging that respondent No. 1 - Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department is going to2 construct a pakka water course in Murabba No. 37, wherein the agriculture land of the petitioner is situated. It is alleged that in Killa Nos. 20 and 21 of Murabba No. 37 Mango and Blackberry trees are planted and the respondents want to cut the said trees, though the same are not obstructing the construction of pakka water course. It is prayed that the respondent-defendants may be restrained from cutting the Mango and Blackberry trees situated in Killa No. 20 and 21 of Murabba No. 37. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it is mentioned that for the purpose of construction of pakka water course, those trees planted on the agriculture land of the petitioner are required to be removed and the petitioner-plaintiff would be compensated for the same. 4. The petitioner-plaintiff has moved an application under Order 26, Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC and prayed that Court Commissioner may be appointed for the physical verification of the site. The application was opposed by the defendants while claiming that they are admitting the contention of the petitioner that the Mango and Blackberry trees are required to be cut for the purpose of construction of 3 pakka water course, then in such situation, there is no requirement of appointing any Court Commissioner for physical verification of the site. 5. After considering submissions made on behalf of the parties, the learned trial court proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner for appointing the Court Commissioner and held that there is no dispute regarding the fact that Mango and Blackberry trees exist on the agriculture land of the petitioner and they are required to be removed for the purpose of construction of pakka water course, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for appointment of the Court Commissioner. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the application preferred by the petitioner, she has specifically mentioned that if the water course is constructed, financial loss would be caused to her, however, the trial court has simply rejected the said contention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not moved an application for appointing the Court Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the valuation of property or damages likely to be caused to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that4 on account of construction of the water course, she will suffer damages, and to determine the same, the appointment of the Court Commissioner is necessary and, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside. 7. After taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, examining the material placed on record particularly the application preferred by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner and perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. 8. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the application preferred by the petitioner and has observed that when there is no dispute regarding the factual position as the defendants have admitted the same, there is no requirement to appoint the Court Commissioner for the physical verification of the site. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the damages and has observed that from the averments made in the application, it emerges that the petitioner has not prayed for appointment of5 Court Commissioner for determining the damages etc. and has simply prayed for appointment of the Court Commissioner for physical verification of the site. The learned trial court has also observed that regarding the damage likely to be caused to the petitioner by the construction of the water course, Issue No. 1 has already been framed and the same will be decided as per the evidence adduced by the parties. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and, therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. 10. Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******