JUDGMENT : DR. A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 25.8.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak in C.S. No.235 of 2015-I. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. to depute a civil court commissioner to prepare a spot map and answer the questions appended therein. 2. Aisha Khatun, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs instituted the suit for demarcation of the suit land, permanent injunction and in alternative for a decree that she has perfected title over the land, if found encroached. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of a civil court commissioner to prepare a spot map and answer the following questions. “(1) The Commissioner will show in a spot map the position of plot No.-760 and its surrounding plots. (2) The Commissioner will indicate the length and breadth of the plot No.760 indicate the structure i.e. house under construction as exists on plot No.-760 the adjacent plot. (3) The Commissioner will also indicate in detail the nature of construction and the area covered by the said construction.” 3. The defendants filed objections to the same. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhabesh Kumar Das vs. Mohan Das Agarwal, 2015 (II) CLR-603, learned trial court came to hold that this Court vide order dated 3.11.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.11880 of 2014 directed the municipal authority to conduct measurement of the disputed area by an amin of the office of the Tahasildar with due intimation to the plaintiffs. Consequent upon the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23801 of 2014, a letter was issued to Parsuram Bhanja, amin, Spl. Land Acquisition Section by the Tahasildar, Bhadrak for re-measurement of the disputed land. Thereafter the amin proceeded to the spot after giving notice to the plaintiffs and submitted demarcation report on 15.01.2015. The report revealed that the plaintiffs have encroached an area of Ac.0.01440 sq. links out of plot no.759 and has constructed building and boundary wall thereof. Land Acquisition Section by the Tahasildar, Bhadrak for re-measurement of the disputed land. Thereafter the amin proceeded to the spot after giving notice to the plaintiffs and submitted demarcation report on 15.01.2015. The report revealed that the plaintiffs have encroached an area of Ac.0.01440 sq. links out of plot no.759 and has constructed building and boundary wall thereof. Since the disputed land has already been demarcated by a duly appointed amin consequent upon the direction of this Court and report of the said amin is available, there is no requirement of appointment of a civil court commissioner for further demarcation and preparation of spot map. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. 4. Heard Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 5. Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. deals with Commissions to make local investigations. The same is quoted hereunder :- “9. Commissions to make local investigations-In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court.” 6. In Mahendranath Parida vs. Purnananda Parida and others, 64(1987) CLT 722, it was held that when the controversy is as to identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or object, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared. 7. In Ramakant Naik and others vs. Bhanja Dalabehera, 2015 (Supp.-II) OLR-418, this Court held that issuance of a Commission for local investigation is the discretion of the Court. While considering the prayer for appointment of Commission, the Court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass order. No straight jacket formula can be laid down. Before issuance of Commission, the Court must be satisfied that there is prima facie case in favour of the applicant. 8. While considering the prayer for appointment of Commission, the Court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass order. No straight jacket formula can be laid down. Before issuance of Commission, the Court must be satisfied that there is prima facie case in favour of the applicant. 8. The original plaintiff filed a writ application being W.P.(C) No.11880 of 2014 impleading the defendants and others as opposite parties to quash the notices issued by the defendants to stop construction over the land. A Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ application on 3.11.2014 with a direction to the municipal authorities to measure the area through the Tahasildar by taking assistance of amin. A further direction was issued to the municipal authorities to re-look the matter taking into consideration the fresh measurement to be undertaken through local Tahasildar. The original plaintiff has also filed W.P.(C) No.23801 of 2014 before this Court to quash the notice dated 28.11.2014 issued by the defendants directing her to remain present on 6.12.2014 for measurement of the land. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.12.2014 by a Bench of this Court with a direction to the municipality to measure the land. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, a letter was issued by the Tahasildar, Bhadrak to the amin, Spl. Land Acquisition Section for measurement of the disputed land. The amin proceeded to the spot after giving notice to the parties. After measurement, he submitted the report on 15.01.2015. 9. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Learned trial court is directed to conclude the hearing of the suit by end of June, 2017.