ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the orders dated 22/8/2022 (Annex.7) and 19/11/2022 (Annex.9), whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC has been rejected and the review petition filed by the petitioner qua the said order also has been rejected. 2. The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration, permanent & perpetual injunction and for possession in relation to land situated at Khasra No. 607 ad measuring 9 bigha at Jaisalmer. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed. 3. The defendants filed their written statement along with counter claim, wherein, while denying the case of the petitioner, mandatory injunction was sought for removal of encroachment done by the petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC with the averments that based on the notification dated 15/2/2007, the District Collector issued a public notice dated 18/9/2007 that raising of any construction within 100 mtrs. of the boundary and barbed wire of Air Force is prohibited. It was claimed that the land of the petitioners is beyond 100 mtrs., however, as the Air Force has made encroachment and had constructed a gate and RCC wall, still the construction is beyond 100 mtrs. and the same is being used for parking of the vehicle and there is no construction and, therefore, for just disposal of the case, it was necessary that Commissioner be appointed for making a report on the encroachment made by the Air Force/taking measurements so that actual position can come before the court. 5. The application was contested by the respondents and the trial court by its order dated 22/8/2022 came to the conclusion that the application has been filed at the time of final arguments on the application for temporary injunction, which has apparently been filed for collecting evidence, for which purpose the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC cannot be used and consequently rejected the application. 6. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking review of the order with the submissions that the basis on which the application has been rejected is causing irreparable injury to the petitioners and that by seeking Commissioner’s report, evidence would not be collected rather the same would help the court in due disposal of the case, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be reviewed. 7. Whereafter, written submissions were filed referring to the report dated 15/12/2016 prepared by the Tehsildar and report dated 23/12/2016, whereby, the report dated 15/12/2016 was reviewed and it was indicated that the report dated 15/12/2016 would be treated as cancelled and void and as the two conflicting reports are before the court, without seeking Commissioner’s report, disposal of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is not possible. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its order dated 19/11/2022 came to the conclusion that the petitioners have sought review of the order dated 22/8/2022 and has relied on the two reports given by the Tehsildar on 15/12/2016 and 23/12/2016, which reports have not been challenged by the petitioners and from the entire record it is not apparent that the same pertained to the temporary injunction application and consequently came to the conclusion that no case for review was made out. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC and the review petition. 10. Submissions have been made that when two conflicting reports of the Tehsildar were on record, for just disposal of the case the Commissioner’s report was necessary and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to the set aside. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 12. As noticed hereinbefore, in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC the petitioners indicated that for the purpose of determining the encroachment by the Air Force, Commissioner be appointed, who can do the measurement for the purpose of bringing out the actual position before the court. In the said application, there was no reference made to the said reports and/or the same being conflicting. 13. In the said application, there was no reference made to the said reports and/or the same being conflicting. 13. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the application for appointment of Commissioner essentially was in the nature of gathering evidence, which was not permissible and rejected the application. 14. Whereafter, in the application seeking review also no reference was made to the said reports of Tehsildar and it was simply indicated that the determination made regarding attempt to collect evidence was not correct and that the commissioner report would aid the disposal of the suit. 15. Whereafter, in the written submissions reference was made to the reports of Tehsildar and the conflict therein. 16. From the above sequence of events it is apparent that it was nowhere the case of the petitioners in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC or in the review application that on account of conflicting reports of the Tehsildar the appointment of Commissioner was necessary. On the other hand, a casual plea was raised that as the Air Force has encroached over the land, Commissioner be appointed. When rejection of the application took place, a very casual application seeking review was filed, which was not within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and by way of written submissions, submissions were made pertaining to the two reports and even before this Court entire emphasis was laid on the said reports to contend that appointment of Commissioner was necessary. 17. From the fact that at the stage of filing of the application as well as review, the petitioners had not relied on the said reports, the attempt, by way of an after thought, appears to be to somehow create confusion based on the said documents, which documents were available on record since 2016. 18. Therefore, the rejection of the application by the trial court vide its order dated 22/8/2022 and dismissal of the application seeking review by the order dated 19/11/2022, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted. 19. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.