ORDER : H. Billappa, J. 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 25.7.2013, passed by the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 32/09 on I.A. No. 2 vide Annexure-H. By the impugned order at Annexure-H, the appellate court has allowed I.A. No. 2 filed by the respondents for appointment of the Court Commissioner to identify the disputed property and submit his report. 2. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioners had filed suit in O.S. No. 80/2007 for permanent injunction in respect of 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 51/1 of Mogarahally village, Srirangapatna Taluk. After trial, the trial court has decreed the suit by its Judgment and decree dated 24.3.2009. The respondents have preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 32/09. In the appeal, the respondents have filed I.A. No. 2 for appointment of the Court Commissioner. The appellant court by its order dated 25.7.2013 has allowed IA No. 2. Therefore, this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the suit was for permanent injunction and the trial court has recorded its finding that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and therefore, appointment of Court Commissioner was unnecessary. Further he submitted that the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence and the material on record is sufficient to decide the case and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the disputed land Sy. No. 51/1 and other properties fell to the share of Bettegowda in the partition between Bettegowda and Kuntegowda on 18.9.1946. The first respondent is the adopted son of Bettegowda. He is in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy. No. 51/1. Kuntegowda gifted the land in favour of his sister Narasamma through gift deed dated 8.5.1950. In the gift deed, the boundaries are correct but, the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as 51/1 instead of 51/2A and the measurement is mentioned as 1 acre 38 guntas. Whereas Sy. No. 51/1 measures only 1 acre 3 guntas. No. 51/1. Kuntegowda gifted the land in favour of his sister Narasamma through gift deed dated 8.5.1950. In the gift deed, the boundaries are correct but, the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as 51/1 instead of 51/2A and the measurement is mentioned as 1 acre 38 guntas. Whereas Sy. No. 51/1 measures only 1 acre 3 guntas. Kuntegowda sold the property in favour of Bonasegowda through registered sale deed dated 23.1.1952 and retained no lands. Bonasegowda's son Dasegowda separated from the family by taking his share. Dasegowda and the second petitioner sold the land in Sy. No. 51/2A to Smt. Anasuyamma mentioning the boundary of the respondent property in Sy. No. 51/1. The petitioner has suppressed the earlier suits. Therefore, appointment of Court Commissioner was necessary. The appellate court has rightly allowed IA No. 2 and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for my consideration is:- Whether the impugned order calls for interference? It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S. No. 80/2007 has been filed by the petitioners for permanent injunction. The petitioners contend that they are in possession and enjoyment of 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 51/1 of Mogarahally village. The first respondent contends that he is in possession and enjoyment of Sy. No. 51/1 of Mogarahally village. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The matter is in appeal. Having regard to the nature of controversy, it is appropriate to identify the properties with reference to the documents produced by the parties in evidence. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. However, it is clarified that the commissioner shall measure and identify the properties with reference to the documents produced by the parties and submit his report. It is for the court to decide as to who is in possession of the property. The writ petition is disposed of as above. I.A. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.