JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The petitioners have laid challenge to an order dated 31.08.2017 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Merta, District Nagaur, whereby an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking appointment of Commissioner has been rejected by the Trial Court. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners - plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking an order of restraint against the defendant - respondent, who has been raising a boundary wall, which would narrow down the way to the petitioner's house. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners submitted an application dated 21.07.2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to appoint Commissioner. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court inter-alia observing that the Court cannot appoint Commissioner, to collect evidence for the plaintiff, while observing thus:- ^^lkFk gh mDr fookfnr Hkwfe vke jkLrs dh Hkwfe gS ;k ugha bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij vHkh rd lk{; vkuk 'ks"k gSA fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl}kUr gS fd ,slk dksbZ fcUnq tks i{kdkjksa }kjk fopkj.k esa lk{; ds }kjk fl} fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj fd;k tkuk pkfg;s mls dfe'uj dks funsZf'kr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA bl lEcU/k esa izko/kku lk/kkj.k fu;e flfoy] 1986 ds fu;e 67 esa Hkh miyC/k gSA ekSds dh fLFkfr dks lk{; }kjk izekf.kr djus dk nkf;Ro Loa;a i{kdkj dk gSA U;k;ky; dh izfdz;k dk mi;ksx i{kdkj vius fy, lk{; ,df=r djus ds fy, ugh dj ldrkA mijksDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 7 lhŒihŒlhŒ vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl VhŒvkbZŒ fnukad 01-09-2017 dks is'k gksA** 4. Mr. O.P Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order whereby petitioners' application for appointment of Commissioner has been rejected is illegal and contrary to the facts involved in the present case. He submitted that if the Commissioner is not appointed and the factual position as obtaining on the date of filing the suit is not taken on record, the defendant would continue his construction, as a result whereof, the suit would be rendered in fructuous and the equity would change. 5. He submitted that if the Commissioner is not appointed and the factual position as obtaining on the date of filing the suit is not taken on record, the defendant would continue his construction, as a result whereof, the suit would be rendered in fructuous and the equity would change. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of the pleadings of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Court below has committed no error of law in refusing to appoint Commissioner. There is no question or fact, required to be determined at the present stage, warranting assistance of the Commissioner. The petitioners-plaintiffs are required to project and prove their case by way of leading evidence. 6. No interference in extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is called for. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.