JUDGMENT : 1. Though this matter has been listed in the “For Orders” category, but with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter has been finally heard. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure-8) passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Gadhi, District Banswara in Civil Misc. Case No. 21/2017; and (ii) the application filed by the respondents Under Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C. may be dismissed with costs in toto; and (iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the fact and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioners; and (iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioners.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants regarding their jointly owned and possessed land situated in Araji No.508 Old No. 678,679 admeasuring 775 square yards of Village Lokiya, Patwar Halka Arthuna, Tehsil Gadhi, District Banswara which was purchased from one Daya Lal and others on 28.07.1983 and thereafter the same was converted into Abadi land by the order of Collector dated 24.02.1986. 4. The suit No.16/2017 was filed stating therein that the petitioner-defendants are encroaching upon the respondents-plaintiffs’ jointly owned and possessed land and that the petitioners-defendants have dismantled the boundary wall constructed by the respondents-plaintiffs using the JCB machine at the land in question. Along with the suit, a temporary injunction application was also filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. The petitioners-defendants filed a detailed written statement to the plaint and the temporary injunction application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (JD), Gadi, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), passed an interim order dated 25.05.2017 (Annex.3) and directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs moved an application seeking appointment of Commissioner for site inspection, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, and the Commissioner so appointed submitted his report dated 27.05.2017 (Annex.2). 6. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs moved an application seeking appointment of Commissioner for site inspection, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, and the Commissioner so appointed submitted his report dated 27.05.2017 (Annex.2). 6. The respondents-plaintiffs thereafter filed a contempt petition dated 31.05.2017 (Annex.4) under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil procedure Code 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC” for short) before the learned trial court against the petitioners to which a reply (Annex.5) was filed by the petitioners stating therein that they have not raised any kind of construction over the land in question. 7. Thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC seeking appointment of site commissioner and seeking report from him, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.8) and again appointed a Commissioner. 8. Hence, being aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.8), the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants made following submissions:- (a) That the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order and appointing second commissioner in the matter as there was no occasion for the same when there was already a report regarding the land in question submitted by the Commissioner. (b) That application for appointment of Commissioner cannot be taken into consideration on mere application of a party. The learned trial Court, without application of mind and without considering all the aspects of the matter, has allowed the application seeking appointment of second commissioner, which is not permissible in the eye of law as it is settled legal proposition of law that Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collecting evidence. In the case in hand, the respondents-plaintiffs, in the garb of report of Commissioner, want to collect evidence in their favour for adjudication of contempt petition, which is not permissible in the eye of law. (c) That neither the learned trial Court has given any cogent finding for allowing the application for appointment of second Commissioner nor the respondents-plaintiffs have mentioned any reason for seeking report from Commissioner and thus, the respondents-plaintiffs only want to seek evidence in their favour for adjudication of the contempt petition. (d) That allowing appointment of second commissioner would not only lead to the mis-trial of the suit but also will result into miscarriage of justice. (d) That allowing appointment of second commissioner would not only lead to the mis-trial of the suit but also will result into miscarriage of justice. (e) That the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in allowing the application of the respondents-plaintiffs without considering the fact that there is already a report of commissioner in the matter and unless any objection is raised regarding the report of the first commissioner by either of the party, second commissioner cannot be appointed and in the present case, no such objection was raised by either party and thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. In support of his submissions made above, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Rakamchand & Ors. Vs. Rukmani [2022(2) CCC 649 (Rajasthan)], Gopalkrishnan Vs. P. Shanmugam [AIR 1995 Madras 274] and R. Vijayudu Vs. N. Ramachandra Reddy [2004 AIHC 4322 (A.P.)]. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs supported the impugned order and made following submissions:- (a) That the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order while considering all the aspects of the matter and thus, it cannot be said to be a non-speaking order, rather it is a detailed order and there is no lacuna whatsoever as the impugned order has been passed after deliberate examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the law involved. (b) That it is the discretion of the learned trial Court to appoint commissioner to fetch exact and correct situation of the disputed land for proper disposal for the matter. (c) That it is apparent from the reply to the contempt petition filed by the petitioners-defendants that the petitioners-defendants have raised construction and thus, it became necessary to verify the current status of the disputed land for which appointment of commissioner was necessary and thus, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law in allowing the application. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court is of the considered view that the application of the respondents-plaintiffs was filed with the intent to demonstrate before the learned trial Court that despite the order of status quo granted by the learned trial Court, the petitioners-defendants have raised construction on the land in dispute, which was denied by the petitioners-defendants in the reply filed in the contempt proceedings before the learned trial Court. However, in order to ascertain whether the petitioners-defendants have not obeyed the order dated 25.05.2017 (annex.3) and have willfully committed contempt, it was necessary to appoint a Commissioner. The second Commissioner has not been appointed in the Suit No.16/2017, pending before the learned trial Court. On the contrary, the Commissioner has been appointed on account of contention of the respondents-plaintiffs that the petitioners-defendants have willfully disobeyed the order dated 25.05.2017 (Annex.3) passed by the learned trial Court raising construction on the land in question and the learned trial Court has rightly observed that appointment of the Commissioner in the contempt proceedings would not amount to collecting evidence by the respondents-plaintiffs in his favour. The petitioners-defendants, in the reply to the contempt proceedings, admitted that they have raised construction but not on the land in dispute, thus, it becomes necessary to ascertain the present status and condition of the land in dispute by way of appointing a Commissioner. 14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Gadi, Banswara in Suit No.16/2017 and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 15. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.