ORDER : 1. This captioned writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.599/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFCIII, Hubballi at Hubballi vide AnnexureF. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of possession. The plaintiffs have specifically contended in the plaint that the plaintiffs are seeking possession by way of consequential relief. Defendants are seriously disputing the title and they are claiming that it is their property. The properties of the plaintiffs and defendants are abutting to each other. The plaintiffs have contended that the properties were got measured by elders without having recourse to an authorized surveyor by the State. Since a relief of possession is sought, the plaintiffs in order to secure best piece of evidence by having recourse to local inspection, has filed the present application. 3. Learned judge having examined the rival contentions, has allowed the application. The learned Judge has observed that, to secure actual factual matrix and to ascertain the alleged encroachment, it is a fit case for local inspection by appointing the Court Commissioner. Learned Judge was also of the view that based on oral and documentary evidence on record, the controversy in regard to actual encroachment cannot be decided. On these set of reasoning, learned Judge has proceeded to allow the application thereby appointing a Court Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the controversy in regard to alleged encroachment is decided in a bare suit for injunction filed on earlier occasion. 5. The objection of the petitioner before the learned judge and before this Court is that, if the Court Commissioner is appointed, the same would amount to collection of evidence and the same is impermissible under law. On these set of defence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that the order under challenge suffers from serious material irregularities and hence would submit to this Court that the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On these set of defence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that the order under challenge suffers from serious material irregularities and hence would submit to this Court that the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff repelling the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that both the parties have led in evidence and it is only the local inspection that would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the controversy between the parties and hence would support the order under challenge. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the order under challenge and also meticulously examined the pleadings of the parties and averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application. 8. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have encroached over the properties owned by the plaintiffs. Having led in evidence, the plaintiffs have sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to measure the suit property and submit a report to that effect. 9. The objections raised by the petitioner that if the Court Commissioner is appointed, the same would amount to collection of evidence cannot be acceded to. If a consequential relief of possession is sought and if there is an allegation that there is an encroachment, then it would be always open for the parties to seek local inspection to get property measured. It is a trite law that the party alleging encroachment cannot be precluded from producing best piece of evidence. In a suit for declaration and possession, appointment of Court Commissioner to measure the suit property would not amount to collection of evidence. The object of Order XXVI Rule 9 is to elucidate the matter in dispute by local investigation of the spot. If the Court is satisfied on the material available on record that plaintiffs are not able to produce desired evidence, it can exercise discretion and order for Local investigation. I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to present petitioner. The present petitioner will have an opportunity to countermand the report by leading other evidence. 10. If the Court is satisfied on the material available on record that plaintiffs are not able to produce desired evidence, it can exercise discretion and order for Local investigation. I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to present petitioner. The present petitioner will have an opportunity to countermand the report by leading other evidence. 10. In that view of the matter, the conclusions and reasons assigned by the learned judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.