ORDER : Petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.02.2020 passed on I.A.XI in O.S.No.112/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere by which the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, is allowed. 2. The suit is one for declaration and possession of ‘A’ schedule property and to direct the defendant to deliver the encroached portion of 13 guntas of ‘B’ schedule property. After completion of the trial, the plaintiff filed an application I.A.XI under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC to appoint the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property and to find out as to whether any encroachment is made by the defendant or not and to submit report. The said application was opposed by the petitioner stating that without their being any material on record, the plaintiff could not seek for appointment of Commissioner. The said application was allowed and the Taluk Surveyor was appointed as Court Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property and to find out as to whether any encroachment was made by the defendant or not. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is for the plaintiff to first establish that the defendant has encroached portion of 13 guntas of land and thereafter, he can seek for appointment of Commissioner. Unless there is evidence on record or any documents to show that the defendant has made encroachment, it would not be open for the plaintiff to seek for appointment of the Commissioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Annappa Mestha vs. Mutayya Achari reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3599 and prayed for allowing the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view, that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The suit is one for declaration and possession of encroached portion of land to an extent of 13 guntas of land. The suit is one for declaration and possession of encroached portion of land to an extent of 13 guntas of land. When there is an allegation of encroachment, any amount of oral evidence would not be sufficient to resolve the dispute between the parties. Hence, it is appropriate for the Court to appoint the Commissioner and get a report, so as to resolve the dispute between the parties. This Court in a decision reported in (2014) 2 KCCR 1652 in the case of Bhimappa Rayappa Chougala vs. Shrikant and others at para 4, it is held as follows: “4. The suit is one for possession and injunction. The plaintiffs claim, the defendants have encroached upon their property. Only if the plaintiffs are able to show that the defendants have encroached upon their property, they would be entitled to the relief. Any amount of oral evidence is not a substitute or sufficient to prove the encroachment. To cut short the litigation to reduce recording evidence, the trial Court in its wisdom, though it fit to appoint a commissioner even before the commencement of the trial. That is how the duration of the litigation could be curtailed and speedy disposal of the civil matter could be achieved.” The above decision would aptly apply to the facts of the present case. The decision cited by the petitioner would have no application to the facts of the present case. Thus I find no error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.