ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original plaintiff challenges the order dated 02.09.2022 passed below Exhibit-315 and order dated 17.09.2020 passed below Exhibit-338 (wrongly stated to be Exh-457 in the prayer clause), contending that the said orders are illegal and passed without hearing the petitioner, so far as order passed below Exhibit-338 is concerned. 2. In addition to it, on merit, other grounds are raised. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 78 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Godhara, claiming that suit property is owned and possessed by the petitioner-Society, as an owner, and defendants- respondents herein have no right, title or interest to remove them from the said possession or interfere with the boundary or damage or remove the boundary thereof. In short, the said suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, not to interfere with their physical possession, not to damage or remove the boundary thereof. On filing of the suit, summons came to be issued, defendants appeared before the Court and filed their written statement claiming that against the petitioner-plaintiff, the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Public Premises Act”) is going on, wherein petitioner-plaintiff appeared before the Estate Officer. 3.1 According to the case of the defendants, the plaintiff has encroached upon total 1244.51 sq. meters of the land of their ownership and they have put boundary walls and fencing in the property of the ownership of the defendants. Though other details of the suit and proceedings therein are not necessary for the purpose of this decision, suffice it to say that the petitioner-plaintiff has been granted an order of injunction in his favour, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court also. However, not only the Appellate Court but this Court also directed expeditious disposal of the suit, within three months of the Appellate Court’s order from 13.04.2006, but this Court also directed the same to conclude the suit proceedings within 08 weeks from the receipt of the order dated 24.07.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7785 of 2011, that too, at the instance of the present petitioner. Neither the suit is disposed of within a period of three months, as directed by the Appellate Court in an appeal challenging an order passed below Exhibit-5 to conclude the same within three months from 13.04.2006, even suit is yet not completed despite the High Court directed its disposal within 08 weeks from the receipt of the said order dated 24.07.2013. Despite 09 long years have passed and there is an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and direction by the Court for expeditious disposal of the suit within a time bound programme, it has yet not been concluded. Without going into the details, who is responsible for the same, fact remains that it is yet not concluded, over and above the injunction, the proceedings under “the Public Premises Act” are also stayed by this Court in a proceedings again filed by the petitioner till the conclusion of the suit. 3.2 Coming back to the challenge in this petition, by way of Exhibit-315 application, the respondents-defendants requested the Court for appointment of Court Commissioner for local investigation under Order XXVI, Rule 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) as it is coming out from the pleading that there is a dispute with regard to the encroachment over the land of the defendants, whereas plaintiff claims it to be of their ownership, to draw the panchnama and the map. 3.3 After hearing the parties, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod vide order dated 02.09.2022 directed the District Inspector Land Records, Dahod be appointed as Court Commissioner to record panchnama and draw the map to the disputed property. After giving notice to the parties and panchas well in advance and to produce report on or before 08.09.2022, thereafter it appears that an application Exhibit-338 came to be submitted by the respondents-defendants herein for correction of commission letter as what was prayed in an application Exhibit-315 and granted by the Court was missing in the commission letter. The copy of that application Exhibit-338 seeking correction in the commission letter was furnished to the plaintiff and he endorsed that he will file the reply and offer explanation thereof. The said application came to be given on 17.09.2022 and copy thereof was also furnished to the petitioner-plaintiff on the same day. The copy of that application Exhibit-338 seeking correction in the commission letter was furnished to the plaintiff and he endorsed that he will file the reply and offer explanation thereof. The said application came to be given on 17.09.2022 and copy thereof was also furnished to the petitioner-plaintiff on the same day. The Court on the very same day passed an order, considering even endorsement over the said application by the petitioner-plaintiff that the commission letter reflects incomplete details which is issued pursuant to the order passed below Exhibit-315 and the said mistake is committed by the Clerk through oversight and therefore, exercising powers under Sections 151 and 152 of “the Code” the Court directed to issue commission letter as per the order passed below Exhibit-315 and issue a fresh commission letter thereof. 4. Both these orders are under challenge by way of this proceedings. However, as coming out from the submission made the case is awaiting argument from both the sides and final disposal thereof. 5. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, Senior Advocate, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff, submitted that Court Commissioner was earlier appointed and he has also drawn the panchnama and map on filing of a suit and therefore, there is no requirement of ordering another Court Commissioner to carry out the panchnama and to draw the map of the suit land. He has further submitted that despite Exhibit-315 application pertains to two lands, the Court passed an order in respect of suit land and therefore, panchnama which was already existing before that date with regard to suit land, there is no necessity to pass another order for the same relief. He has further submitted that under the Town Planning Scheme, the petitioner-plaintiff was put in possession of a final plot after drawing the boundaries and as per that he is in possession of the same. He has further submitted that so far as order dated 17.09.2022 is concerned, there was no hearing provided to the petitioner-plaintiff and therefore also, the order impugned as also the second order i.e. below Exhibit-338, are required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that so far as order dated 17.09.2022 is concerned, there was no hearing provided to the petitioner-plaintiff and therefore also, the order impugned as also the second order i.e. below Exhibit-338, are required to be quashed and set aside. 5.1 He has further submitted that these two applications under Exhibits-315 and 338 are given at such a belated stage, it should not have been entertained by the Court, when there was already a Court commission appointed and panchnama was drawn with map at the time of filing of the suit. This exercise, that too, at the instance of defendants-respondents is uncalled for. He has further submitted that the Trial Court granted prayer below Exhibit-315 in respect of subject matter to the suit in context of prayer made i.e. suit land. He has further submitted that para-4 & 24 of the impugned order consciously or otherwise refers to the suit land. 5.2 Over and above the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned counsel, relied on a decision in the case of Subhaga and Others vs. Shobha and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 466 , more particularly Para-6 thereof, contending that property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Relying on the said decision, it is submitted that when the petitioner society was put in possession by the Town Planning authority by earmarking the boundaries and it has been identified by way of panchnama carried out by the Court Commissioner along with a map, there is no requirement of another Court commission to be appointed for local investigation for identifying the boundaries. It is submitted that the defendants have not clarified what area exactly encroached by the petitioner and they have not shown their entitlement over the land possessed by the petitioner-plaintiff, the carrying out of local investigation by appointing of the Court Commissioner would be a futile exercise. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and going through the impugned orders as also the documents annexed with the petition, it emerges that prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner society was served with the notice by the defendants initiating the action under “the Public Premises Act” which led the petitioner-plaintiff to file the present suit. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and going through the impugned orders as also the documents annexed with the petition, it emerges that prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner society was served with the notice by the defendants initiating the action under “the Public Premises Act” which led the petitioner-plaintiff to file the present suit. Not only that, according to the written statement filed by the respondents-defendants, the petitioner-plaintiff has encroached upon the railway land to a large extent i.e. 1244.51 sq. meters. However, the proceedings initiated under “the Public Premises Act” have been ordered to be kept on hold till this dispute under the suit is determined. The suit was also directed to be completed within three months, that too, in the year 2006. Over and above that, again this Court, in a petition filed at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff in the year 2013, directed the suit to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of that order, that too, in the year 2013. Even if nothing is attributed to the petitioner, fact remains that the suit is yet not determined. 7. Coming to the contention of the petitioner that as per the written statement filed by the respondent-Railway Authority, the petitioner has encroached upon their land to the extent of 1244.51 sq. meters, not only that, prior to the filing of the suit, actions were also initiated under “the Public Premises Act” which have been entangled in Court proceedings initiated by filing of the present suit by the petitioner-plaintiff and now it is ordered to be conducted only after the suit is to be determined. Looking at the Exhibit-315 application given by the respondents-defendants that there is no clear picture before the Court with regard to the claim made by the petitioner-plaintiff and the actual extent of encroachment over the land of respondents-defendants, local investigation of the place vis-a-vis the right of the plaintiff as also the claim made by the defendants in the written statement that they have encroached the land of the defendants-respondents, is required to be cleared by way of an appointment of Court Commissioner to carry out the local investigation with a panchnama as also the map drawn. Exhibit-315 application is very clear requesting the Court to appoint District Inspector of Land Records Office and Town Planner, Dahod, be appointed as the Court Commissioner to measure the land situated in Revenue Survey No. 270/A/1, Final Plot of which is 59/5, admeasuring 1711 sq.meters i.e. suit land and to the northern side of that suit land till the railway line of a railway land with measurement, boundaries, drawing of a panchnama and map thereof. 8. After hearing the parties, the Court had directed the District Inspect of Land Record, Dahod as Court commissioner, to record panchnama and draw the map to the “disputed property.” The petitioner-plaintiff has tried to confuse this disputed property with respect to the suit land. However, the dispute raised by the defendants-respondents is with regard to the encroachment over their land by the petitioner-plaintiff and that is stated to be the disputed property by the respondents-defendants in Exhibit-315 application and therefore, directing the District Inspector of Land Records, Dahod to act as Court Commissioner and to record the panchnama and draw the map with regard to the suit land is concerned, it is misconceived, as argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The disputed property being the encroachment committed over the railway land as requested to record the panchnama and to draw the map thereof with the boundaries of the petitioner-plaintiff and on the northern side of the railway property to the said boundaries to be measured and disclosed in the map to decide the real controversy involved in the suit. Therefore, even if earlier a panchnama, that too, at the instance of plaintiff-petitioner while filing the suit is already there, on filing of the written statement and putting up a clear case of encroachment over the railway land to decide the real dispute between the parties, appointment of such Court commissioner recording the panchnama and drawing the map of the disputed property shown in Exhibit-315 application is required. As such, the order is very clear with respect to disputed land and the dispute is already mentioned in the application Exhibit-315 and it was never ordered in respect of suit land, as contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner. As such, the order is very clear with respect to disputed land and the dispute is already mentioned in the application Exhibit-315 and it was never ordered in respect of suit land, as contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Looking at the order impugned as also the application made, it is clear that Court had intended only to record the panchnama and draw the map in respect of the disputed land, as mentioned in Exhibit-315 application. 9. For a just decision and to reach right conclusion in respect of the disputes in between the parties in the suit, as there are competing claims in respect of encroachment, local investigation by the Court commission and drawing map is required, that too, by official agencies at the helms of affairs of revenue record and jurisdiction. The contention that order passed below Exhibit-338 in respect of correction in commission letter was passed without giving an opportunity of filing reply and hearing, again has no legs to stand. It is not a substantive order, which is required to be passed after hearing both the parties at length. It is only with regard to correction of the mistake committed by the Clerk in issuing commission letter, which did not contain both the properties i.e. disputed property, as mentioned in Exhibit-315 application, for which Court passed an order, it was required to be corrected. The Court concerned has not done anything wrong in it, even if, it is passed without hearing the petitioner-plaintiff. If any clerk either deliberately or through oversight commits such mistake, the Court is empowered to correct the same under Sections 151 & 152 of “the Code.” As such, it was found to be a sheer mistake not recording correct facts as ordered by the Court in a commission letter and it was corrected. Therefore, on that ground also, the challenge to order passed below Exhibit-338 also cannot sustain. 10. As stated in the petition itself, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is already over and defendants’ evidence also appears to be essentially complete and the suit is now at the stage of final hearing, it is expected that suit is completed as early as possible. In view of what is stated hereinabove, I see no reason to interfere with both these impugned orders, that too, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of what is stated hereinabove, I see no reason to interfere with both these impugned orders, that too, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is rejected. 11. After dictation of this order, a request for stay of this order is made, which is refused as for one or the other reasons the suit which was expected to be completed within three months from at-least year 2006 and again within 08 weeks from the year 2013, as expressed by this Court, that too, in a petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff it is yet in 2022 not completed, I see no reason to stay this order. Hence, the said request is refused.