ORDER 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Banswara, whereby petitioners? application dated 15.11.2018, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order impugned, submitted that the Court below has erred in rejecting petitioners? application, seeking appointment of Commissioner, while simply observing that the petitioners are trying to collect evidence in their favour. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court?s attention towards the subject application and argued that according to the plaintiff, the defendents are raising construction on their (plaintiff?s) land situated in Survey No.10/2, whereas it is contention of the defendants (present petitioners) that they are raising construction in the land situated in Survey No.505/236/7, which is in possession of defendant. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindera Nath & Ors. Vs. Piyush Kumar Joshi reported in 2019 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1183. 5. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that petitioners have filed the subject application simply with a view to collect evidence, rather create evidence in their favour. He added that a party to the suit has to substantiate its stand by leading evidence; oral or documentary. He cannot misuse the process of law by filing an application seeking appointment of Commissioner. 6. Heard. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the fact as to whether the construction which is being raised by the respondent? plaintiff is situated in Survey No.10/2 of village Shyampura or in Survey No.505/236/7 cannot be determined on the basis of documents. 8. Since the very location of the plot is in dispute, it is only the Revenue Authority, who can ascertain and apprise the Court about correct location of the construction. 9. In the facts of the present case, it is wrong to apprehend that the petitioners would collect evidence in their favour. 10. The report of the Patwari/Tehsildar will tell the exact location of the plot on which the defendant is raising construction, which may be in favour of the plaintiff as well. 11. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.11.2019 is quashed and petitioners? application dated 15.11.2018 is allowed. 12. 10. The report of the Patwari/Tehsildar will tell the exact location of the plot on which the defendant is raising construction, which may be in favour of the plaintiff as well. 11. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.11.2019 is quashed and petitioners? application dated 15.11.2018 is allowed. 12. The trial Court is directed to appoint concerned Patwari as Commissioner to ascertain the exact location of the offending construction. 13. The requisite ?Tehrir? in terms of the present order be issued by the trial Court, within a period of seven days of placing certified copy of the order instant. 14. Stay application is also disposed of.