ORDER : 1. Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.7352/2014 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against the order dated 17.12.2019, a copy whereof is at AnnexureA whereby the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH19) having rejected his application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 has refused to appoint Court Commissioner for identification & measurement of the property in question. 2. After service of notice, respondent having entered caveat through his counsel vehemently opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that relief needs to be granted to the petitioner for following reasons: (a) the suit is for an injunctive decree in respect of the subject property; the respondent being the defendant has filed her Written Statement in April2015 wherein at para 4 the identity & measurement of the property are specifically denied. However, in her Objections dated 28.11.2019 to petitioner’s subject application she has specifically stated “In the case on hand there is no controversy as regards identification, location or measurement ……”; this stand is in variance with what is taken in the Written Statement; this aspect of the matter having not been adverted to by the Court below in proper perspective, there exists an apparent infirmity in the impugned order; (b) the other contention of the respondent that the subject application is filed when the suit is posted for arguments and the application ought to have been filed much before again is bit difficult to accept; it is a settled position of law that ordinarily an application of kind needs to be made only after the conclusion of recording of evidence subject to exceptions; some time is spent between recording of the evidence and filing of the application is true; but a short delay cannot defeat a legitimate right of the litigant; and, (c) the objection to the request for appointment of the Commissioner in the face of these facts is preposterous inasmuch as it is not knowable at this stage whether Commissioner’s report shall go against the interest of the respondent; it may prove to be beneficial to her also; if the report goes adverse to her interest, such party is entitled to object to the report; thus there is a safety clause which the parties may invoke depending on the nature & effect of the report. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is invalidated; the subject application of the petitioner having been favoured, the Court below shall take immediate steps for appointing some expert officer of the BBMP as the Court Commissioner. It is needless to state that both the parties are entitled to file memo of instructions to the Commissioner through the medium of Court below. Writ petition is disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties. No costs.