JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction under Section 91 CPC against respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleging trespass on the land claiming the same to be part of public way and sought removal of encroachment from the said land. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure-4), inter alia, seeking appointment of competent person (Revenue Officer) for bringing on record the correct position of the site and direct the Commissioner to indicate the present status of the disputed way. 4. The application was opposed by the respondent No. 2; it was, inter alia, indicated that the petitioners were seeking to collect evidence and for that purpose Commissioner cannot be appointed. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the fact as to whether there is encroachment/trespass or not and as to who has encroached, has to be proved by way of evidence and Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence and, consequently, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application, inasmuch as, there was a factual dispute as to the encroachment/obstruction created by the respondent No. 2 on the public way and the application was filed for appointment of Commissioner so that the correct position could come before the trial court and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application by merely observing that Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Channa Ram v. Jairoop Ram & Ors., 2014 (1) WLN 389 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 9. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Channa Ram v. Jairoop Ram & Ors., 2014 (1) WLN 389 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 9. From a bare perusal of the application filed by the petitioners, it is apparent that the application was filed with absolutely vague averments; the petitioners after indicating their case and that of the respondent No. 2, regarding the alleged encroachment, have sought appointment of Commissioner by simply stating that the correct position be brought on record and the same would help the Court and would not hurt anyone. 10. The application did not indicate as to on what aspect of the dispute and/or the status the report was required from the Commissioner and in what manner such a report would help in determining the issues involved in the matter. The very fact that petitioners even did not indicate as to the specific aspects, for which, the appointment of Commissioner was sought, the application even otherwise, was liable to be dismissed for being absolutely vague. The trial court after noticing the said aspect and on coming to the conclusion that the issue as to the trespass would have to be decided by way of evidence by the parties was justified in coming to the conclusion that the manner in which the petitioners had sought appointment of Commissioner was apparently for the purpose of collecting evidence. 11. The order in the case of Dhanna Ram (supra) has been passed in the given circumstances of that case and has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******