JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Assailing the order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakhyanagar in C.S. No. 24 of 2009, the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. to depute a civil court commissioner for identification of the suit property and submit a report with regard to the damage caused to the suit property. 02. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit for damages claiming an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- against the defendant-opposite party no.1. The short fact of the case of the plaintiff is that the land measuring an area Ac.4.05 dec. out of plot no.4889 has been acquired by the Government on payment of due compensation to him and the proforma defendants. The acquisition was made for the purpose of construction of canal, i.e., Bhairpur Distributory under Rengali Irrigation Project. During construction of the said canal, the defendants caused substantial damage to the residue land of plot no.4889. While the matter stood thus, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff to depute a civil court commissioner for identification of the suit property and the extent of damage caused to the suit property for digging of the land. By order dated 2.12.2010, learned trial court rejected the said application. 03. Heard Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.B.K. Rao, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied the decision in the case of Mahendranath Parida Vrs. Purnananda Pardia and others, 64 (1987) C.L.T. 722 and submitted that the defendant had caused damage to the suit land. The same can be ascertained by the survey knowing commissioner. 05. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mahendranath Parida (supra) is totally misplaced. 06. In Mahendranath Parida (supra), this Court held that where the controversy between the parties is the area of the land or identification or location of an object or the land, local investigation is necessary, essential, requisite or proper, it will not be a sound exercise of discretion without anything more to decline to appoint a commissioner. 06. In Mahendranath Parida (supra), this Court held that where the controversy between the parties is the area of the land or identification or location of an object or the land, local investigation is necessary, essential, requisite or proper, it will not be a sound exercise of discretion without anything more to decline to appoint a commissioner. Very often decision of a case turns on the identification or determination of the area and evidence in relation thereto from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot. 07. The controversy is not with regard to the identification, location or measurement of the land or premises or object. 08. In view of the same, learned trial court is quite justified in rejecting the application of the plaintiff. The view taken by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed. 09. There being no perversity or illegality in the order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakhyanagar in C.S. No. 24 of 2009, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Learned trial court is directed to conclude the hearing of the suit by end of July, 2016. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.