ORDER : Petitioner being the first defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S No. 5414/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 13.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F, whereby the Learned LII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, having favoured respondent’s application in I.A No.XXII filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 has appointed the Court Commissioner for accomplishing the task in question. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines grant of indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the accomplishment of recording of evidence, ordinarily no Commissioner could have been appointed, does not much impress this Court inasmuch as, the order in question is a result of exercise of discretion and wisdom by the Court below, although made when the recording of the evidence is half a through; no Commissioner can ever be appointed till after the completion of the recording of evidence cannot be treated as a thumb rule, disregarding myriad circumstances that the cases pose to the Courts; decision whether to appoint Commissioner or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case; (b) the second contention that the impugned order is prejudicial to the interest of the parties, since the Commissioner has to undertake the exercise with limitations inbuilt in the order, can be taken care of by the court below by addressing the instructions which the petitioner as also the respondent may seek to issue to the Commissioner; that course is always open to the petitioner and Commissioner shall not start the exercise till after desirability and nature of the instructions is considered by the court below; (c) the last contention that the property being situate in the urban agglomeration, no official of the Revenue Department could not have been appointed as the Court Commissioner, is not supported by any law or Ruling; ordinarily, who should be appointed as the Commissioner lies with the learned trial Judge who employs his wisdom in the matter of course after having say of the parties; there is nothing in the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 to support this contention of the petitioner. This Writ Petition is disposed off with the above observations.