ORDER K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. Petitioner who is plaintiff in O.S. No. 5536 of 2007 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 20-2-2013 at Annexure-H passed on I.A. No. II of 2013 filed in the above said suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that he is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, viz., 12 1/2 guntas of land in Survey No. 71 situated at Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and also sought for permanent injunction against the defendants and at the stage of arguments on main, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for issuing commission to the Tahsildar or Special Tahsildar or the Assistant Director of Land Records to identify the plaint schedule property as mentioned in the Relinquishment Deed dated 5-12-1989 at Ex. D. 22 claimed by the defendants 1 to 5; to prepare a detailed sketch with regard to the suit schedule property and also the extent of 34,920 square feet claimed by defendants 1 to 5 is civic amenity site and submit report, but the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application. He submits that appointment of a Commissioner is necessary for adjudication of the dispute and he relies upon the decision in Shreepat v. Rajendra Prasad and Others JT 2000 (7) SC 379 and Jagannath B. v. N.C. Narayanappa and Another 1981 (2) Kar. L.J. 432 : AIR 1982 Kant. 233. He also submits that while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has made certain observation touching the merits of the suit. 2. Learned Counsel for respondents 1, 3 and 5 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the impugned order does not call for interference in the light of the decision in Puttappa v. Ramappa 1996 (2) Kar. L.J. 70 : ILR 1996 Kar. 1443 : AIR 1996 Kant. 257 and Jagannath B.'s case. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent 2 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 4. Admittedly, the suit was ready for final disposal. The Court perused the documents and issues and came to a conclusion that appointment of a Commission was necessary. 1443 : AIR 1996 Kant. 257 and Jagannath B.'s case. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent 2 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 4. Admittedly, the suit was ready for final disposal. The Court perused the documents and issues and came to a conclusion that appointment of a Commission was necessary. The petitioner has given boundaries to the suit schedule property and also says that he is in possession of the suit property. Under such circumstances, appointment of a Commissioner as prayed for by the petitioner was unnecessary. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to the case of the petitioner. I see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed on I.A. No. II of 2013 filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that some of the observations made in the impugned order would prejudice the case of the petitioner is concerned, it is made clear that if there is any such observation made in the impugned order, the Trial Court shall dispose off the case untrammeled by the observations made in the impugned Order. In the result, petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.