JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in C.S. No.202 of 2010. By the said order, learned trial court has appointed an amin commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 2. Plaintiff-Opposite party instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and recovery of possession. Case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit land. He has constructed a house on the western side of the plot. Towards eastern side, there is a vacant land. He is residing with his family. Defendants' office and godown situate towards southern side of the plot. Defendants are not in possession of the suit plot. The note of possession of the defendants has been wrongly reflected in the remarks column of the ROR. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants is that they constructed a godown over a portion of the suit land in the year 1960 and two rooms adjacent to the Sundargarh-Jharsuguda road in the year 1985-86. The suit land is a part and parcel of plot no.787. Plaintiff has no title over the suit land. The suit land originally belongs to Jamuna Gouduni and Ananta Goud. They approached the defendants to sell the same. Defendants purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1958 for a consideration of Rs.700/-. Possession was delivered to them. After purchase, they constructed godown on the western portion of the suit land, where a rice huller was installed. The Secretary could not produce the registered sale deed during the settlement operation, for which the settlement officer recorded the possession of the defendants over the suit land. 4. While matter stood thus, plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a commissioner for demarcation of the property. Defendants filed an objection to the same. The Secretary could not produce the registered sale deed during the settlement operation, for which the settlement officer recorded the possession of the defendants over the suit land. 4. While matter stood thus, plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a commissioner for demarcation of the property. Defendants filed an objection to the same. Learned trial court assigned the following reasons and appointed an amin commissioner for local investigation: ".On perusal of the case record, it is seen that the plaintiff is asserting his right & title over the suit land on the basis of a registered sale deed and over the suit land, the defendants are also claiming their title on the plea that, since the year 1958 they have purchased the suit land from Jamuna Gouduni & Ananta Gouda. In the above circumstances, when both the parties are claiming their title and possession over the suit land. I feel it proper to appoint an Amin commissioner to make local investigation for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute. Thus, to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and for the interest of justice, the petition under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff is allowed" 5. Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no justifiable reason to appoint a survey knowing commissioner in the facts scenario. The dispute does not pertain to demarcation or identification of the land. Plaintiff claims title over Plot No.573/3738, Khata No.27 of Mouza-Chitabhanga. He can adduce evidence to establish title. The commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. 6. Per contra, Mr. P. Sahani on behalf of Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the dispute pertains to identification of the land. Learned trial court has rightly appointed an amin commissioner. 7. In Mahendranath Parida v. Purnananda Parida and others, (1988) AIR Orissa 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. 8. Reverting to the facts of this case and keeping in view the law laid down in Mahendranath Parida, this Court finds that both parties claim title over the suit land. 8. Reverting to the facts of this case and keeping in view the law laid down in Mahendranath Parida, this Court finds that both parties claim title over the suit land. Plaintiff filed the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC stating that the property which the defendants are claiming according to their sale deed is totally different from the questioned property involved in the suit. The defendants have purchased the property appertaining to plot number 787/2 from Jammuna Goudini and Ananta Gauda. 9. Learned trial court held that both parties are claiming title over the suit land. The same is not per se a ground to appoint an amin commissioner. The plaintiff can adduce evidence to substantiate the case. The dispute does not pertain to the area or identification or measurement or location of the land. Learned court below travelled beyond its jurisdiction in appointing an amin commissioner. 10. The impugned order, if allowed to stand, will cause miscarriage of justice. The court below has exercised its jurisdiction in a manner not permitted under law and failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 11. In the wake of aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed. The petition is allowed. No costs.