JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.11.2018, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh in Case No. 482 of 2014, titled as Pritu Vs. Babu Ram, vide which, an application filed under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation of the suit land has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner herein has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, which is pending adjudication before the learned Court below. The suit was initially instituted against the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents. 3. It is a matter of record that after the framing of issues, respective parties led their evidence and thereafter, the matter was being taken up by the learned Court below for the purpose of hearing. 4. Learned Trial Court adjourned the case for the purpose of hearing five times. Thereafter, an application stood filed by the present petitioner under Section 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 525/269 and 248 in Village Rampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The reasons mentioned in the application, inter alia, were that plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration on the basis of exchange entered into between the parties and said exchange stood denied by the defendant. Plaintiff had got the demarcation carried out somewhere in the year 2005 before the exchange took place. However, said file was not available in revenue record. According to the plaintiff, demarcation was a technical type of work, which only revenue officials could do and he being an illiterate person, could not demarcate the land himself. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to seek the assistance of the Court to have the land demarcated by way of appointment of a Local Commissioner. 5. This application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the plaintiff had filed the application just for the purpose of collecting evidence in his favour and the same stood filed at a belated stage when five opportunities stood granted by the learned Trial Court on the request of the plaintiff to argue the case on merit. 5. This application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the plaintiff had filed the application just for the purpose of collecting evidence in his favour and the same stood filed at a belated stage when five opportunities stood granted by the learned Trial Court on the request of the plaintiff to argue the case on merit. It was further the stand of the respondents before the learned Court below that though the Court had power to appoint a Local Commissioner, but the same can be done where boundary dispute existed and in the present case, there was no boundary dispute between the parties, as suit for declaration stood filed by the plaintiff on the plea of oral exchange and the application was a clever attempt made by him to collect evidence to fill up the lacuna and loopholes in his case. 6. Vide impugned order, learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that appointment of Local Commissioner was not required in the case keeping in view the nature of dispute between the parties and allowing the application would tantamount to collection of evidence for the applicant/plaintiff. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the pleadings appended with petition. 8. It is not in dispute that the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the present petitioner at a belated stage after the parties had led their respective evidence and after plaintiff had availed five opportunities for addressing the Court on merit. Application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Local Commissioner was filed on the grounds, which I have already enumerated hereinabove. A perusal of the plaint which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1 demonstrates that the decree which has been sought by the plaintiff is a decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner of the suit land described in the plaint and revenue record pertaining to the suit land contrary to the factum of exchange was wrong, illegal, null and void, inoperative, ineffective and liable to be corrected. An alternative decree for vacant possession of the suit land was also prayed. An alternative decree for vacant possession of the suit land was also prayed. A perusal of the relief thus prayed for by the plaintiff, prima facie, demonstrates that it is not the case of boundary dispute. The plaintiff is seeking a declaration against the defendants qua the suit land on the basis of some oral exchange, which purportedly, stood entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. Whether any such exchange took place or not, is for the learned Trial Court to adjudicate upon, on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence which has been placed on record by them. However, in view of the relief so sought by the plaintiff in the suit, application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation of the land, to say the least, was otherwise also not maintainable. 9. The application was filed at a belated stage, i.e., at the stage of hearing and that too, after availing five opportunities to address the Court on merit. No cogent explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why the application was filed at such a belated stage. 10. Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that 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 etc., 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. 11. Even otherwise, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, primarily, this Court is not to go into the merits of the findings returned by the learned Court below, because what this Court has to see is as to whether there is any jurisdictional error committed by the learned Court below or whether the findings returned by the learned Court below are so perverse that if there are permitted to remain on record, the same would amount to grave injustice to the party concerned. 12. Prima facie, it is the satisfaction of the Court as to whether local investigation is necessary or not for elucidating any matter in issue. 12. Prima facie, it is the satisfaction of the Court as to whether local investigation is necessary or not for elucidating any matter in issue. Herein, by way of a well reasoned order, learned Court below has returned the findings that the dispute involved in the suit was not such which required appointment of a Local Commissioner. 13. As I have already pointed above, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the learned Court below has committed any jurisdictional error while deciding the application nor the petitioner has been able to point out any perversity with the findings returned by the learned Court below. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any perversity in the impugned order, the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.