JUDGMENT : Ravi Malimath, J. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the instant petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner from the Revenue Department to ascertain whether the disputed land is part of the suit land belonging to the applicant-plaintiff or to the respondent-defendant. 3. The suit was filed seeking for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing causing any kind of interference in the land in question. Therefore, the necessary issue to this effect would have been framed by the trial Court. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case through evidence to be led in by him as to whether he is entitled to a prohibitory injunction against the defendant or not. Appointment of a Local Commissioner is nothing but an attempt to collect evidence by the plaintiff which may not be appropriate. Secondly, the application has been filed after the closure of the evidence and when the matter is set down for arguments. 4. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances involved, the application filed at the stage of arguments for the purpose of appointment of a Local Commissioner, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, may not be appropriate. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case through evidence that he has led in and not by appointment or collection of evidence through the Commissioner. Therefore, I find that the reasons assigned by the trial Court in dismissing the application, are just and appropriate. I find no good ground to interfere. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous application is disposed off.