JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the trial court rejecting their application filed under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction along with application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, inter alia, contending that the petitioners have constructed shops leaving the area to be acquired, however, the respondents were trying to demolish the shops of the petitioners and, therefore, they be restrained from doing so. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Tehsildar as Site Commissioner so as to indicate whether the shops in question were constructed on Khasra Nos. 2375 and 2376. 4. The application was opposed by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the construction on the site does exist and for that purpose there was no reason to appoint Commissioner. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not indicated as to why the Commissioner report was required and as there was no dispute regarding existence of the construction at the site and its measurement, there was no reason to appoint Commissioner and rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to Annexure-2 filed with the writ petition indicated that in reply to an application filed by the petitioners under Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act') the respondents indicated that there is no land acquisition in Khasra No. 2376; the shops in question stand on Khasra No. 2376 and, therefore, it was necessary for the trial court to appoint Commissioner so as to give a report whether the petitioners' shops stand on Khasra No. 2376 or not and it cannot be said that the said aspect was not relevant for just disposal of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners; it was submitted that the communication dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure-2) was sent by a clerical error and the same is contrary to the Notification dated 28.09.2012, wherein, lands in both Khasra Nos. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners; it was submitted that the communication dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure-2) was sent by a clerical error and the same is contrary to the Notification dated 28.09.2012, wherein, lands in both Khasra Nos. 2375 and 2376 have been acquired and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit of the clerical error and the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The foundation of the petitioners for getting the Commissioner appointed lies in the information dated 15.10.2013 provided to the petitioners under the Act, wherein, on behalf of the Project Director an information has been supplied that land has been acquired from Khasra No. 2375 only and there is no land acquisition in Khasra No. 2376; the said information on face of it is contrary to the Notifications dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-R/1/1) and dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure- R/1/2), wherein, the lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 2375 and 2376 both have been indicated, the information provided under the Act cannot override the substance contained in the Gazette Notifications pertaining to the acquisition of the lands in question. 10. In that view of the matter, once the very fact that the lands comprised in both Khasra Nos. 2375 and 2376 are under acquisition is established, the reason indicated by counsel for the petitioners that Commissioner needs to be appointed for ascertaining as to whether the shops stand on Khasra Nos. 2375 and 2376 looses significance. In view thereof, the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. 11. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******