ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs made an application for appointment of commissioner under Section 75 read with Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC stating inter alia that they are owner and title holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 622/1, area 1.619 hectare situated at village Fingeshwar, P.C. No. 8, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyabandh and they are not aware of the boundaries of the suit land, therefore, boundaries of the suit land be demarcated by appointing commissioner in order to pass effective decree. 2. The said application was replied by the defendants that the petitioners are not entitled for the said relief as the demarcation of the suit land is not the subject matter of the suit and the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 CPC cannot be invoked to collect evidence and, as such, application is liable to be rejected. 3. The trial Court, by its impugned order dated 15.02.2016, rejected the application filed by the petitioners, against which, instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 4. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the trial Court committed illegality in rejecting the application as the boundaries of the petitioners' land are not known to the petitioners and, therefore, in order to pass effective decree, demarcation of the suit land is absolutely necessary by appointing Revenue commissioner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of E. Achuthan Nair v. P. Narayanan Nair and another (1987) 4 SCC 71 in support of his submissions. 5. Per contra, Shri T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2/defendants would submit that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of Ashutosh Dubey and another v. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal and another 2004(2) MPHT 14 , Jogendrasinhji Vijay Singh Ji v. State of Gujrat and others (2015) 9 SCC 1 & Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others (2015) 5 SCC 423 . 6. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction over the part of suit land bearing Khasra No.622/1, area 1.619 hectare approximate four acres situated at Village Fingeshwar, P.C. No.8, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband and also sought relief that they are entitled to get their name entered into the revenue records; and also sought relief of delivery of possession from the defendants. 8. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, plaintiffs have described the details of suit property, which states as under :- ;g fd fookfnr d`f"k Hkwfe fLFkr xzke fQaxs'oj] i0g0ua0 8 rglhy jkfte ftyk xfj;kcan N0x0 fLFkr [kljk uEcj 622@1 dk VqdM+k jdck 1-619 gs0 pkj ,dM+ gS tks okn i= ds lkFk layXu izi= ^v* esa of.kZr gS rFkk mlh xzke fQaxs'oj i0g0ua0 8 rglhy jkfte ftyk xfj;kcUn esa fLFkr orZeku [kljk uEcj&486 dk VqdM+k jdck 1-15 gs0 fookfnr Hkwfe okn i= ds lkFk layXu izi= ^c* esa of.kZr gS ,oa xzke fQaxs'oj fLFkfr fookfnr edku dk utjh uD'kk prqZlhek of.kZr gS tks orZeku esa [k.Mgj gks x;k gS og izi= ^l* esa of.kZr gS] ;gh izi= ^v*] izi= ^c*] izi= ^l* esa of.kZr laifRr bl okn esa vkxs fookfnr Hkwfe ,oa fookfnr laifRr dgyk;sxkA 9. Defendants No. 1 & 2 filed their written statement, in which they have admitted the averments made in paragraph 4 of the plaint and, as such, there is no dispute as to identity the suit property or area of the suit property, for which decree for declaration of title, delivery of possession and permanent injunction has been claimed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. 10. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application for appointment of commissioner on 6.2.2016 i.e. after five years of the filing of the suit (12.10.2010) stating inter alia that the plaintiffs are not aware of the adjoining area of the suit land bearing Khasra No.622/1, area 1.619 hectare, for which the Revenue Officers are not able to indicate the boundaries of his suit land, therefore, demarcation and spot inspection by appointing the revenue commissioner would be necessary. 11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC, which states as under :- "9. 11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC, which states as under :- "9. Commissioner 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." 12. Undisputedly, the petitioner's suit is not a suit for demarcation of boundaries separating adjacent lands of different owners. It is well settled law as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of E. Achuthan Nair (supra) that suit for demarcation of boundary separating adjacent lands of different owners is maintainable, even if plaintiff himself is uncertain about the precise boundary; and a dispute regarding identification of boundary between two adjacent land owners is certainly a dispute of a civil nature and it is not barred either expressly or impliedly. 13. But position here is quite different. The plaintiffs in this case have sought relief of declaration, title, permanent injunction and delivery of possession; and there is no dispute about the identity of the disputed land in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, even identity of the suit land has not been disputed by the defendants No. 1 & 2 in their written statement filed before the trial Court. 14. The object of Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC is not to assist a party to collect evidence where it can’t get the evidence itself. The object is for elucidating any matter in dispute by local investigation at the spot. 15. In the matter of Debendranath Nandi v. Natha Bhuiyan AIR 1973 Orissa 240, High Court of Orissa has held that the object of local investigation under the rule is to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can best be had from the spot. 16. 15. In the matter of Debendranath Nandi v. Natha Bhuiyan AIR 1973 Orissa 240, High Court of Orissa has held that the object of local investigation under the rule is to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can best be had from the spot. 16. Thus, taking into account the nature of suit filed by the plaintiffs, as stated herein above ,and there is no dispute on the identity of the suit land between the parties before the Court to pass an effective decree and the identity of land is also not in dispute in the suit and no such relief has been claimed in the plaint, application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC cannot be allowed to permit plaintiffs to claim a relief, which he has not even claimed in the main suit. Even otherwise, the application is wholly unnecessary and such application has been made only to delay the trial of the suit and, therefore, the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ Petition is dismissed.