ORDER : The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent in O.S.No.46/2014 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.3 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to reject the report of the Commissioner and issuance of fresh warrant for appointment of a Commissioner. 2. In terms of the petition averments, the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and in possession of the same. The petitioner came in possession of the suit schedule property measuring about 6 acres 29 guntas pursuant to a registered partition deed dated 01.01.2003. 3. It transpires that when the respondent herein tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner by wrongfully trespassing into the property which led to filing of O.S.No.46/2014 by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Procedure Code, 1908, for appointment of the Court Commissioner, which was allowed and a surveyor was appointed as the Commissioner to conduct survey with regard to the claim of the parties and submit a report to the Court. 4. The Commissioner filed his report before the Court to which both the plaintiff and the defendant objected to, contending that it did not reflect correct facts and boundaries. The plaintiff filed an application before the Court in I.A.No.3 of 2018 seeking permission to reject the Commissioner’s report and issuance of fresh commission warrant. The Trail Court declined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Commissioner had given the report colluding with the defendant as the defendant had also filed his objections to the report of the Commissioner. The Trail Court was of the opinion that since the trial is yet to commence and in the event after completion of the evidence if the Court would find any ambiguity, it was open to the Court to reject or accept the report and on this ground rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 5. The Trail Court was of the opinion that since the trial is yet to commence and in the event after completion of the evidence if the Court would find any ambiguity, it was open to the Court to reject or accept the report and on this ground rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would confine the writ petition only to an observation from the hands of this Court that after closure of the evidence, in the event it is noticed that there is need for a fresh Commissioner’s Report, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to file an application to that effect. The Trail Court in the order impugned has also indicated that in the event any ambiguity ensues it may either reject or accept the Commissioner’s Report. Hence, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.46/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura. 6. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh application for issuance of fresh Commission Warrant after closure of evidence of the parties, if need arises. Any such application filed is to be considered by the Trail Court in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.