JUDGMENT & ORDER : This civil revision is directed against the order dated 8-8-2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Title Appeal No.12 of 2013 rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of survey commissioner to ascertain as to whether the suit lands fall within TTAADC area. According to the petitioner-defendants, from the voters list of the TTAADC area for the 2011, Chankup mouja is within the TTAADC area and whether all documents clearly prove that the suit lands situate within the TTAADC area. It is not in dispute that no such application was filed by the petitioners in the course of trial; it is only at the appellate stage that such an application has been made for the first time. 2. The findings of the appellate court in rejecting the application are as follows: “..… The appellants being the defendant No.6 and 7 in the original suit and the other defendants of the original suit being appellants in other Title Appeal No.13 of 2013 pending before this Court never raise such question for appointment of survey commissioner; rather, they admitted that the suit lands are not within the TTAADC area as it is reflected in the judgment of the learned Trial court in para 27 that “the defendants do not deny the admissibility of the documents Exbt.1 series, 3 series, 5 series and 6 series”. Hence, the present application for appointment of survey commissioner at this stage is nothing but to cause the delay in the present appeal. It is also stated that the suit land admittedly situated in a part of Chankup mouja but does not fall within the other sub-villages being the part of Chankup mouja being declared under Jamthum ADC village in the notifications (Exhibit 5 and 6). The suit lands fall in the sub-villages, namely, Singhagarh colony other part of Chankup mouja also being under Chankup GP. The other voter list of TTAADC area of the year 2011 as referred by the appellants shows part of Chankup mouja within the sub-villages, namely, Janakram Chowdhury para, Bikram Debbarma para, Adarsha Colony, etc. which is under Jamthum ADC village being indicated in the Gazette notification dated 28-9-2001 and 14-12-2005 (Exhibit 5 and 6). Ld. The other voter list of TTAADC area of the year 2011 as referred by the appellants shows part of Chankup mouja within the sub-villages, namely, Janakram Chowdhury para, Bikram Debbarma para, Adarsha Colony, etc. which is under Jamthum ADC village being indicated in the Gazette notification dated 28-9-2001 and 14-12-2005 (Exhibit 5 and 6). Ld. Trial court have considered all such statements and the notifications and decided that the suit lands are not within the TTAADC area. It is also stated that all the documents of both the parties submitted in the Trial court including notifications and the map are sufficient documents for the proof of the dispute as to whether the suit lands fall under the TTAADC area or not and there is no such necessity in this respect for field verification by any survey commissioner as claimed by the appellants. Hence, it is prayed that the petition under Order 26 rule 9 of CPC of the appellants be dismissed.” 3. Before proceeding further, it may be apposite to refer to Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus: “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: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 4. Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to appoint commission to hold local investigation for the purpose of elucidating a matter in dispute. The expression “elucidate” means to make lucid or clear, throw light upon, explain, enlighten. Hence, where the Court is satisfied on the materials available on record that a party is not able to produce required evidence due to certain circumstances, it may assist the litigant to appoint a Commissioner to get such material which neither can be had from the records nor can be produced by the parties by leading oral or documentary evidence. Hence, where the Court is satisfied on the materials available on record that a party is not able to produce required evidence due to certain circumstances, it may assist the litigant to appoint a Commissioner to get such material which neither can be had from the records nor can be produced by the parties by leading oral or documentary evidence. The position of law, I think, and with due respect, is best explained by the Karnataka High Court in Annappa Mestha v. Mutayya Achari, 2002 (3) Kar LJ 650 in the following manner: “8. The need to have resort to Order 26, Rule 9 ought to be felt by the Court for purpose of elucidating certain details which, in its opinion, can neither be had from the records nor can be produced by the parties by way of oral and documentary evidence. The details so required by the Court ought to be such that in their absence determination of issues in dispute cannot be effectively adjudicated upon necessitating the appointment of Commissioner on its own or at the instance of either of the parties. Where the Court is of the opinion that the matters in dispute could be effectively adjudicated upon by having resort to the evidence available on record, the Court at its discretion can refuse to direct appointment of Commissioner. In the case on hand the Court below on more than one occasion referred to the sufficiency of evidence on record for deciding the rival claims of the parties. When the Court itself is of the view that elucidation of any matter is not required for purpose of deciding the case, the order passed by it rejecting the I.A. No.XI filed for appointment of Commissioner cannot be found fault with. In the view that I have taken, I find that the Court below has not exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity calling for interference at the hands of this Court.” (Underlined for emphasis) 5. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be adduced in Court but to obtain material which from its very peculiar nature can best be had only on the spot. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be adduced in Court but to obtain material which from its very peculiar nature can best be had only on the spot. It is true that Section 107(2), CPC gives the appellate court the same powers and same duties as nearly as may be as are conferred and imposed by the Code on Court of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted. Having said that, it must be made clear that the appointment of survey commissioner is not authorised by Order 41, Rule 27, CPC; this rule relates to additional evidence. It cannot, however, be denied that an appellate court has the power to issue commission for local investigation in the same manner in which a Trial court can act under Order 26, Rule, 9, CPC. As already noticed, this follows from Section 107, CPC. Long time back, the Allahabad High Court in Ram Dihal Lal and others v. Lakhpat Lal & anther, AIR 1932 All 270 succinctly and precisely brought out the difference between the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 and Order 41, Rule 27, CPC in the following manner: “2. ……….. However that may be, it was clearly a matter within the discretion of the lower appellate Court either to issue a commission or not to issue a commission, and I am satisfied that the lower appellate Court had sufficient reasons to issue a commission. It is true that these reasons were not recorded by the Court, as they should have been, if it had been a case of taking additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(b) if that rule applied. The reasons however were set forth in the memorandum of appeal. The question which has been argued at some length is whether in issuing a commission the lower appellate Court had to act under Order 41, Rule 27. That rule refers in Rule 27(l)(a) to cases where the Court of first instance refused to admit evidence and it is clear that that was not the case in this appeal. In Rule 27(l)(b) the rule refers to where the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined. That rule refers in Rule 27(l)(a) to cases where the Court of first instance refused to admit evidence and it is clear that that was not the case in this appeal. In Rule 27(l)(b) the rule refers to where the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined. Now a local investigation by a commissioner is not the production of a document as the Rule 27(1)(b) must be taken to refer to the production of a document already in existence and it could not refer to the preparation of a report by a commissioner in the future; nor is the report of a commissioner the examination of a witness, because the commissioner is not in general called before the Court to give evidence. For these reasons I do not consider that Order 41, Rule 27(l)(b) can be held to govern the issue of a commission for a local investigation by an appellate Court. No authority has been produced by learned Counsel for appellants to show that the issue of a commission would come under Order 41, Rule 27. On the other hand, there is a special order of the Code, Order 26, which, deals with commissions, and Rule 9 of that order empowers a Court to order a local investigation by a commissioner. It was argued by learned Counsel that this rule would only authorize the Trial Court to issue a commission. But Section 107 (2) states: Subject as aforesaid, the appellate Court shall" have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. 6. This appears to mean that an appellate Court has the powers of a Court of original jurisdiction subject to any conditions and limitations which are prescribed for an appellate Court. There is no condition or limitation imposed by the Code on the issue of a commission by an appellate Court other than the conditions laid down in Order 26. The section of the Code which authorizes a Court to issue a commission for local investigation is Section 75(b). I consider that under Section 107(2) and Section 75(b) an appellate Court has power to issue a commission for a local investigation. The section of the Code which authorizes a Court to issue a commission for local investigation is Section 75(b). I consider that under Section 107(2) and Section 75(b) an appellate Court has power to issue a commission for a local investigation. That being so, the appellate Court is not bound to record its reasons under Order 41, Rule. 27(2) and there does not appear to be any irregularity in the present case. No other ground of appeal was pressed, and accordingly I dismiss this appeal with costs including counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.” 7. The question to be determined now is whether the appellate Court is correct in rejecting the application for issuing commission for local investigation. As already noticed, even though the power to issue such commission is also with the appellate Court, it is not in all and sundry cases that such application should be allowed. In the case at hand, the petitioners are seeking appointment of survey commissioner to find out as to whether the suit lands fall within TTAADC area or not. In my considered view, when the petitioners did not approach the trial court for issuing the commission, the appellate court is not wrong in holding that it did not find the need to have resort to Order 26, Rule 9 for purpose of elucidating certain details which, in its opinion, could neither be had from the records nor could be produced by the parties by way of oral and documentary evidence. The details so required by the Court ought to be such that in their absence, determination of issues in dispute cannot be effectively adjudicated upon necessitating the appointment of Commissioner on its own or at the instance of either of the parties. The appellate Court thought that there was no material which from its peculiar nature could best be had only on the spot. In other words, the notifications and documents already brought on record by the parties in the trial Court are sufficient to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the suit lands fall within the areas allotted to the TTAADC or not. In my judgment, the view taken by the appellate Court is a possible view and if there can be two possible views on an issue, a revisional Court cannot interfere on the ground that the other view would have been better view. In my judgment, the view taken by the appellate Court is a possible view and if there can be two possible views on an issue, a revisional Court cannot interfere on the ground that the other view would have been better view. Subject, however, to my observations on the non-applicability of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC on the facts of this case, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. 8. For what has been stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs. The interim order stands vacated. The appellate Court shall now hear the parties on merit and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Transmit the LC record if otherwise requisitioned earlier.