ORDER : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. W.P. No. 44410 of 2014 has arisen out of the order dated 14-8-2014 Passed by the Court of XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5576 of 2012 on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. W.P. No. 51379 of 2014 is filed by the defendant of the said suit being aggrieved by the order dated 23-6-2014 passed on application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiff in the said suit. 3. Since both these petitions have arisen on two orders passed in the same suit, they are taken up together. 4. Plaintiff-M/s. Classic Infrocon Bangalore Private Limited has filed the suit initially for recovery of land from the defendant in respect of suit schedule property. Plaintiff's case is that defendant handed over the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 28-5-2011. According to the plaintiff, defendant was still in arrears of rent as on the date of handing over the possession. Therefore, the suit is filed. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint to claim damages also. In this regard the application has been filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC which was objected to by the defendant. The said application has been allowed and petitioner has been permitted to incorporate his plea to make a request for awarding damages also. 5. What is argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the defendant is that relief so granted under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC is hit by principles of Order 2, Rule2 of CPC and that no liberty had been got reserved to this effect when the suit was filed. 6. Normal rule is to allow the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC and exception is to reject the same. Just because amendment application is allowed, it does not mean that the plaintiff has been given relief sought for. Plaintiff has to make out a clear entitlement. Nothing comes in the way of defendant to take up all the contentions available in law to it by filing additional written statement. 7. Learned Judge has adverted to all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and passed a detailed order. Plaintiff has to make out a clear entitlement. Nothing comes in the way of defendant to take up all the contentions available in law to it by filing additional written statement. 7. Learned Judge has adverted to all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and passed a detailed order. No jurisdictional error is found in the said order and the discretion so exercised by the learned Judge while allowing application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC is a wise discretion and it cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, W.P. No. 51359 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed. 8. Plaintiff has got the plaint amended to seek the relief of damages. According to the plaintiff, suit schedule property was in a damaged condition when the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. In this regard, plaintiff has got the damages assessed by engaging a Chartered Engineer. Plaintiff is in possession of the report submitted by the Engineer engaged by him. 9. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed under Order 26, Rule 10 of CPC requesting to appoint a Commissioner to visit the premises and elucidate the matter in dispute so as to enable the Court to come to an appropriate conclusion in regard to the actual damage caused to the building. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got already the report from one of its Chartered Engineer and question of appointing Commissioner does not arise. 10. As argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 44410 of 2014, report obtained from the Chartered Engineer could be objected to by the other side stating that it is not a report which is submitted at the instance of the Court. What is the evidentiary value of Chartered Engineer is in the realm appreciation of evidence. In order to vouch safe the contents of the report of the Chartered Engineer. Plaintiff has requested the Court to appoint a Commissioner. 11. What exactly was the condition of the building when the building was handed over to the plaintiff and whether any damage had been caused to the building at that point of time and what is the damage will have to be proved by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has requested the Court to appoint a Commissioner. 11. What exactly was the condition of the building when the building was handed over to the plaintiff and whether any damage had been caused to the building at that point of time and what is the damage will have to be proved by the plaintiff. At the best, report of the Chartered Engineer may be or a little helpful but it cannot be a decisive document. 12. Any amount of oral evidence would not be sufficient to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. In the case of N. Swamygowda v. Ramegowda and Others ILR 2010 Kar. 897, this Court has held that power under Article 227 of Constitution of India is exercisable only for ensuring that the Subordinate Courts function with the limits of their authority. It is true that appointment of Commissioner falls within the discretionary province of the Trial Court. In exercise of the power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, it is not desirable to direct the Trial Court either to appoint or not to appoint the Court Commissioner. In paragraph 9 of the said decision this Court has reiterated that if the identity of the property is in dispute, the Court can unilaterally appoint the Court Commissioner, it can even compel the parties to agree to the appointment of the Court Commissioner. If there is a serious dispute with regard to the area and boundaries of the land in question, the non-appointing of the Court Commissioner results in the serious miscarriage of justice. 13. The anology of the law reiterated in the said decision is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case also. Anyhow the plaintiff has paid huge Court fee for seeking relief of damages also, It would not be advisable to reject the prayer for appointing the Commissioner to visit the spot and elucidate the matter and thereby submit the report to enable the Court to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. 14. The report of the Commissioner is not be all and end all and it would assessed in the light of oral and documentary evidence that would be placed on record. The approach adopted by the learned Judge in rejecting the I.A. filed under Order 26, Rule 10 of CPC is incorrect. 15. 14. The report of the Commissioner is not be all and end all and it would assessed in the light of oral and documentary evidence that would be placed on record. The approach adopted by the learned Judge in rejecting the I.A. filed under Order 26, Rule 10 of CPC is incorrect. 15. Hence it needs to be corrected the learned Judge is directed to appoint a suitable and competent person to visit the spot and submit a detailed report to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion. The learned Judge to formulate appropriate issue at the earliest. It need not be reiterated that soon after the amendment of plaint, liberty is given to the defendant to file additional written statement including the one relating to application filed under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. With this observation, W.P. No. 44410 of 2014 is to be allowed and I.A. filed under Order 26, Rule 10 of CPC is to be allowed: ORDER W.P. No. 51379 of 2014 filed by the defendant of the suit in O.S. No. 5576 of 2012 pending on the file of Court of XXX Additional City Civil Judge challenging the order dated 23-6-2014 passed on an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiff in the said suit is dismissed. W.P. No. 44410 of 2014 filed challenging the order dated 14-8-2014 passed by the Court of XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5576 of 2012 on an application filed under Order 26, Rule 10 of CPC by the plaintiff is allowed. The observation made by this Court is only for the limited purpose of disposing of the writ petitions and it shall not influence the learned Judge in deciding the matter on merits.