ORDER : S.H. Vora, J. By way of the present petition, the petitioners - original defendants challenge the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deesa, Banaskantha below application Exh.13 preferred under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the ‘Code’) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015 whereby, the learned Appellate Judge refused to appoint Court Commissioner to make local inspection and prepare map of the disputed land bearing Survey No. 903 situated at Village: Mudetha, Taluka: Deesa, District: Banaskantha. 2. Having heard submissions made at bar, it appears that the petitioners - original defendants succeeded before the learned trial Court in the suit filed by the respondents - original plaintiffs being Regular Civil Suit No. 83 of 2011. Vide order dated 27.02.2015, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit preferred by the respondents - plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to possession and title relating to the said suit land. Upon dismissal of the suit, the respondents herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015. Alongwith the said appeal, the respondents - plaintiffs filed an application below Exh.5 wherein, the learned Appellate Judge observed that there is no evidence that the petitioners-defendants have obtained possession after redemption of mortgage deed and further, the petitioners - defendants have not filed suit for cancellation of registered sale deed and, on the basis of the documentary evidence and other submissions, the learned Appellate Judge found that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land After making such observations, the learned Appellate Judge stayed the decree passed in the said suit and further directed both the parties to maintain status quo position with regard to possession and title of the suit property as existing on the date of judgment of the learned trial Court till final disposal of the appeal. 3. Pending hearing of the appeal, the petitioners-defendants moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code. In the said application, it was asserted by them that the respondents - plaintiffs are themselves cultivating the land in question and if the order of status quo is not clarified, then, there is likelihood of further dispute between the parties and, therefore, the position, as existing on the suit land, may be recorded through the Court Commissioner including existing situation on the land in question. 4. 4. Learned advocate Ms. A.R. Acharya for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the decisions rendered in the cases of (i) Bali Ram v. Mela Ram reported in AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 87; (ii) Ramaben Arjanbhai Dangarv. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (4) GLR 3661; (iii) Deny @ Dineshbhai Amarshi Ajmera Thro. POA Ketan Chhabildas v. Khutejabibi D/o Ahmad Mohammad Fajal W/o Imamkhan Husainkhan reported in 2013 JX (Guj.) 999 and; (iv) Kamleshbhai Ambalal v. Rajendra Natwarlal Patel reported in 2015 (1) GCD 169, submitted that if the order of status quo is not clarified, then, it would create further complication in the matter and that may followed by criminal complaints. 5. If such is the apprehension in the mind of the petitioners, then, it is always open for them to get order of status quo to be clarified by the Court which passed the order and the Court cannot appoint Court Commissioner for clarification of meaning of the order of status quo passed by the learned Appellate Judge. While disposing of application Exh.5, the learned Appellate Judge found and observed that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and, therefore, there is no reason for the learned Appellate Judge to exercise powers under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Appellate Judge and, therefore, this Court do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. In view of the above, present petition, being devoid of merits, both on law and facts, is hereby rejected at the admission stage. It is clarified that observations made by this Court are with regard to disposal of application Exh.13 only.