Judgment: U.C. Maheshwari, J.;- 1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure-P-10) passed by IInd Additional District Judge Satna, in Civil Original Suit No. 74-A/2010, whereby his subsequent and second application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner to call the Commissioner's report with respect of the disputed property, has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record argued the case at length. During the course of arguments in view of the averments of the impugned order according to which, the earlier application of the petitioner filed in this regard was dismissed on merits and such order was not challenged before this Court by way of writ petition, on making query regarding entertain ability of this petition in the light of principle of res judicata and its interpretation as laid down in the matter of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 on which, the petitioner's counsel submits that the earlier application has been dismissed before closing the evidence but after closing the evidence of both the parties when the case was prepared for final arguments, then some ambiguity has come in the knowledge of the petitioner, which could be solved only by carrying out the spot inspection through Commissioner and his report on which, again on asking whether such ambiguity stated in the impugned application on which, counsel fairly submits that no such averment have been stated specifically in the application and prayed for extending the liberty to file the afresh application under the same provision by mentioning the elaborate description of the ambiguity which have come in the evidence record by the Court for appointment of Commissioner and prayed to pass appropriate order accordingly. 3. Counsel of the respondent no. 1 submits that he did not have any objection if the petitioner is extended a liberty to file the fresh application but the trial Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. 4. 3. Counsel of the respondent no. 1 submits that he did not have any objection if the petitioner is extended a liberty to file the fresh application but the trial Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. 4. In view of the aforesaid arguments of the petitioner's counsel in the available circumstances, I have not found any error in the impugned order which requires any interference at this stage in the matter because the specific averments regarding ambiguity of the evidence on which spot inspection is necessary, are not mentioned in the impugned application. So, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, in the available circumstances, the petitioner is extended a liberty to file the fresh application for appointment of Commissioner by mentioning the specific description of the ambiguity which have come in the evidence of the parties which could be not solved without spot inspection. 5. Such application be filed within 15 days from today. Pursuant to it, the trial Court is directed that on filing such application, the same be considered and decided on its own merit taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law so also without influencing from any observations or findings given by such Court in the order impugned or in the earlier order dismissing the earlier application filed in this regard. Certified copy as per rules.