JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh in Civil Suit No.05 of 2011. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a civil court commissioner. 2. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.05 of 2011 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh for declaration of right, title and interest and correction of settlement map. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. In course of hearing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a civil court commissioner to answer the following questions; “A. Whether the Hal Settlement Map of disputed land is prepared in accordance with the Hal Settlement R.O.R. of village Sinduria of the plaintiffs; B. Whether the Hal Settlement Map is prepared in accordance with Sabik Settlement Map of the disputed land; C. Whether the disputed land of the plaintiffs measuring Ac.1.39 decimals has been reduced by Ac.0.14 decimals in the Hal Settlement Map; D. Whether the area of disputed “Nayan Jori” situates to the immediate; western portion of disputed land the Hal Settlement has been increased in the Hal Settlement Map and not in accordance with Sabik Settlement Map of the disputed land and the Sabik Settlement “Nayan Jori”; E. Whether Ac.0.14 decimals of disputed land of the plaintiff have been amalgamated in the adjoining disputed “Nayan Jori” from the Western portion of the disputed land of the plaintiffs in the Hal Settlement Map.” 3. The defendants filed an objection to the same. Learned trial court held that the answer sought by the plaintiffs in the questionnaires can be adduced by examining the witnesses in the court. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since the dispute pertains to identification of the land, learned trial court has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, supported the impugned order. 6. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since the dispute pertains to identification of the land, learned trial court has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, supported the impugned order. 6. In Mahendranath Parida v. Purnananda Parida and others, AIR 1988 Ori 248 , this Court held that the Court may appoint a survey knowing commissioner, if dispute pertains to area of the land or identification or location or measurement of the land. 7. The instant petition may be examined on the anvil of the decision cited supra. 8. The plaintiffs asserted that Radhakrishna Mohapatra, father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 4 and grand father of plaintiff nos.5 to 7, had purchased an area of Ac.1.75 decimals of land appertaining to Sabik Khata No.316, Plot No.405 of Mouza-Sinduria by means of registered sale deed dated 11.5.1964 from one Laxmi Dibya. The same corresponds to Hal Khata No.763, Hal Plot No.1319. He sold an area of Ac.0.36 decimals to different persons. In the hal settlement map, the area has been reduced to Ac.0.14 decimals. The land has been recorded in the name of Road & Building Department. Though the Commissioner Settlement in Revision Case No.343 of 2006 directed the Tahasildar, Nayagarh for correction of map but the same has not been done. Since dispute pertains to measurement of the land, the same can be ascertained by deputing a pleading commissioner. The plaintiffs can adduce evidence with regard to question nos.A to D. Since defendants are the State of Orissa and its functionaries, there is no impediment to appoint an Amin Commissioner to ascertain the question no.E only. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh in Civil Suit No.05 of 2011 is quashed. Learned trial court shall appoint an Amin Commissioner to submit the report with regard to Question no.E only. The petition is disposed of.