JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. The order of rejection of application of the petitioner for inspection of the adjoining shops in the premises in question is under challenge. 4. It appears that an eviction suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and material alteration on the part of the defendant, who is tenant of the shop in question. A plea has been taken in the plaint that the defendant constructed a partition wall in the shop in question to partition it into two parts. The ground level of the platform in front of the shop has been raised by further raising the main door of the shop in question. Two iron grills on both sides of main door, consequently, are now embedded deep in the raised platform. 5. This suit was contested by the defendant with the contention in paragraph no.3 of the written statement that no partition wall has been constructed by him rather such wall was existing at the time of commencement of the tenancy, he has not raised the level of the platform or the main door of the shop in question. 6. It appears that an application for issuance of Commission for the shop in question was filed which was allowed and the Commission report was submitted on 20.09.2004. The parties have proceeded to led their oral or documentary evidence. 7. At the stage of evidence another application, paper no. 104 C-2 was filed by the petitioner with the contention that similar partition wall is existing in the adjoining shops in the premises in question, a Commission, therefore, be issued to inspect so as to ascertain that the defendant did not alter the shop in question by raising construction of partition wall, it was existing since the time of commencement of the tenancy. This application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that there is a Commission report, it is open for the parties to led their evidences, the age of the partition wall cannot be ascertained by local inspection. 8. This order was challenged in revision which was also dismissed. 9. This application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that there is a Commission report, it is open for the parties to led their evidences, the age of the partition wall cannot be ascertained by local inspection. 8. This order was challenged in revision which was also dismissed. 9. Challenging the rejection orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that he is not pressing his prayer to issue a commission to determine the age of the partition wall of the shop in question. However, the inspection of adjoining shops is relevant so to determine as to whether the partition wall was an addition or it was already existing. The level of the platform in front of the shop in question viz-a-viz the adjoining shops is also to be reported after comparison. 10. The attention of the Court has been invited to the affidavit filed by the neighbours in evidence. On the strength of these affidavits the petitioner tried to assert that the fact narrated by him could only be ascertained after Commissioner inspects the adjoining shops. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged disputing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion for the Court below to issue a Commission for the adjoining shops. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the partition wall existing in the shop in question. To elucidate the facts of this case, it is irrelevant to inspect the adjoining shops. Existence of similar partition wall, even if, is reported in other shops in the building, it cannot be a factor to determine that the partition wall in the shop in question was not constructed by the defendant/petitioner. 12. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in 2016 (115) ALR 798 , relevant paragraph no.14 and 15 are quoted as under;- 14. "local inspection or issue a commission by the Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any party. Such inspection are made to appreciate the evidence already on record and Court is not expected to visit the site for collecting evidence." 15. "It is not mandatory on the part of the Court to issue a commission. When an application is moved for the said purpose. Such inspection are made to appreciate the evidence already on record and Court is not expected to visit the site for collecting evidence." 15. "It is not mandatory on the part of the Court to issue a commission. When an application is moved for the said purpose. The local inspection or commission by Court is made only in those cases where on the evidence led by the parties, Court is not able to arrive at a just conclusion either way or where the Court feels that there is some ambiguity in the evidence which can be clarified by making local inspection or commission. Local inspection or issue a commission by the Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any party. Such inspections are made to appreciate the evidence already on record and Court is not excepted to visit the site for collecting evidence." 13. Submission is that the local inspection or Commission cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The Court shall not issue a Commission to help a party to collect his evidence. It is for the parties in dispute to led their evidences so as to put-forth their case. In case, the Court is of the view that there is some ambiguity and it could not be able to arrive at a just conclusion without local inspection, it can issue a commission. 14. On the strength of judgment of Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 218 , it is urged that the defendant has no right to claim for the inspection of the adjoining shops. On the other hand the Court has no inherent power to pass an order for appointment of Commissioner. The appointment of Commissioner or the Commission report is governed by Section 25 CPC read with Order 26, Rule 9 CPC. A reading of Order26, Rule 9 shows that the commission may be issued by the Court for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. The dispute in the present case is not with regard to the partition wall in the adjoining shops and, therefore, the Court cannot direct for commission. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it is noteworthy that the eviction suit has been filed on the ground of "material alteration". The dispute in the present case is not with regard to the partition wall in the adjoining shops and, therefore, the Court cannot direct for commission. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it is noteworthy that the eviction suit has been filed on the ground of "material alteration". The defendant tenant since the beginning has rebutted the plea of the plaintiff of material alteration with the specific contention that the partition wall was existing at the time of commencement of tenancy. Now in order to establish his contention he wants that the adjoining shops be also inspected so as to arrive at a just conclusion as to whether the partition wall was constructed later on or similar partition walls are existing in all other shops in the building in question. Affidavits of two neighbours D.W 2 and D.W.3 have also been filed in evidence to prove this fact. 16. In such matter it would not be appropriate for the Court to decide the question of material alteration without local inspection/Commission to ascertain the position on the spot. 17. Having perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that in case, similar partition walls are existing in the adjoining shops it may be a relevant factor to be considered by the Court below in order to arrive at a just conclusion on the issue in dispute. 18. It is, therefore, directed that both the parties shall appear before the Court below on 30.05.2016, the Court below shall issue a Commission on the said date and call for Commissioner Report by the next date fixed in the matter which is in the month of July, 2016. 19. As soon as the Commissioner report is obtained, the Court below shall make an endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of four months after giving opportunity to the parties to rebut, but no unnecessary adjournment will be granted to either of the parties. 20. It goes without saying that the Court below shall decide the matter independently un-influenced by any of the observations made above by this Court. 21. With the above direction, the petition is allowed. Petition allowed.