JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. This petition has been filed against the order dated 02.02.2010, in so far as it dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter `the plaintiff'), before the trial court was as also is, before this court, is that the defendant had made unauthorised constructions without the prior permission from the Municipal Corporation Ajmer. He submits that the appointment of commissioner was necessary to make a report in this regard after a local inspection and the learned trial court ought to have exercised its discretion in the facts of the case to appoint a commissioner for making a local inspection and put on the trial court's record the factual position. The trial court however failed to duly exercise its discretion. This court should under its supervisory powers pass a corrective order. 4. Mr. Arvind Gupta, learned counsel for respondent-defendant No.6 (hereinafter `the defendant') submits that the scope of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not to facilitate collection of evidence on behalf of any party. Each party before the trial court has to discharge its burden by leading requisite evidence. And this view has also been taken by this court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Kripal Industries Raisingh Nagar 1998(3) CCC 638 (Raj.) : 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 245, wherein it was reiterated that the power of appointment of commissioner for local investigation cannot be exercised by the court for assisting a party to collect evidence where it can obtain such evidence itself. After the framing of issues, it was for the party on whom the burden lay to bring in evidence to have the issue framed adjudicated in its favour. For the purpose of adjudication of any issue framed by the trial court, assistance of commissioner's report obtained after a local inspection is neither necessary nor justified as the court itself is not in the arena. 5. Heard Considered. 6. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC provides that court can appoint a commissioner for local investigation, inter alia for the purpose of elucidating any point in dispute. 5. Heard Considered. 6. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC provides that court can appoint a commissioner for local investigation, inter alia for the purpose of elucidating any point in dispute. Thus the court may issue a commission to a person if it thinks fit that directing an inspection and a report thereon would help clear the cobweb and facilitate a just decision. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, to my mind confers discretion on the trial court for the appointment of a commissioner for local inspection when clarity in the matter in dispute is wanting from the evidence of the parties to the dispute. `Elucidation' as a word in English language connotes the purpose of clarifying, what is otherwise opaque. The discretionary power vested in the court under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not to aid any of the parties to the dispute by collecting evidence for and on behalf of a party nor can the court enter into the arena of the battle between the parties before it. 7. In the instant case the issue inter alia before the trial court was whether the defendants No.1 to 4 were making unauthorised construction without the permission of Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff having made allegations in regard thereto had the burden to prove his say/assertion one way or the other. There was no occasion for invoking the discretion of the trial court under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 8. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court as it is rooted in well settled principles on law. 9. I find no force in the petition and the same is dismissed.