JUDGMENT : Manish Mathur, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2. 2. Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing order dated 10th January, 2018 passed by trial court rejecting petitioner's application for issue of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as order dated 31st January, 2020 passed by revisional court dismissing the revision. 3. The limited question of law requiring adjudication in the present petition is whether the court below was justified in rejecting the application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for issuance of commission in a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit had been filed for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction with regard to immovable property in which both the plaintiff as well as defendant claimed possession over property in dispute. Under an apprehension that status quo would be changed by the defendants, the petitioner-plaintiff was constrained to file application for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC on 2nd August, 2016. The same was rejected by means of detailed order dated 25th September, 2017, which became final since no revision there against was effected. It is submitted that subsequently in view of a fresh apprehension on the part of plaintiff a subsequent application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151C.P.C. was filed on 14th November, 2017 which has been rejected by means of impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the courts below have erred in rejecting the application for issuance of commission in view of the fact that the suit was not only for cancellation of sale deed but for permanent injunction as well and therefore it was incumbent upon the court concerned to have indicated the status of parties as on the date on which the application was being made so as to prevent any future change at the spot. It is submitted that the trial court as well as revisional court have misdirected themselves in rejecting the application primarily on the ground that earlier as well application for issuance of commission at the behest of plaintiff had been rejected on 25th September, 2017. It is submitted that the trial court as well as revisional court have misdirected themselves in rejecting the application primarily on the ground that earlier as well application for issuance of commission at the behest of plaintiff had been rejected on 25th September, 2017. It is thus submitted that the impugned order dated 10th January, 2018 is ineffective and non speaking order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited through its president versus Additional District Judge, Lucknow passed in Misc. Single No. 2267 of 2012 to buttress his submissions to the effect that the court can not prevent a party from adducing best evidence, if such evidence can be gathered with the help of commission. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that orders impugned are in consonance with settled law and do not warrant any inference particularly in view of the fact that the suit was primarily for cancellation of sale deed in which there is no occasion for determination of actual spot condition by issuance of commission. It is submitted that there is no error in the order dated 10th January, 2018 which has been rejected primarily on account of the fact that second application for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. has been filed although the first one had already been rejected on 25th September, 2017, which became final since the same was not contested. 7. Learned counsel has in turn placed reliance on a judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Ahyam and another versus Additional District Judge and others reported in 2011 (2) CRC 469 to buttress his submission that purpose of appointing commission is not to fill a lacuna in pleadings or to find out some evidence in favour of one or the other party. 8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it transpires that suit had been filed for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction. 8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it transpires that suit had been filed for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction. During course of suit proceedings, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC had been filed for issuance of commission which was rejected by means of order dated 25th September, 2017 primarily on the ground that question regarding possession of parties over the property in dispute can not be ascertained by issuance of commission. It was further held that issuance of commission can not be a substitute for adducing evidence. It is noticeable that the aforesaid order dated 25th September, 2017 attained finality and no revision there against was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff but subsequently another application for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC dated 14th November 2017 was again filed by the plaintiff. It is relevant to indicate that in both the applications the applicant is Smt. Sarla who has been brought on record as a substitute party in place of original plaintiff Km. Chandana Mukherji, who passed away during pendency of suit proceedings. 9. A reading of both applications brings to the fore the fact that essential pleadings for issuance of commission in both the application remain the same which pertained to apprehension on behalf of plaintiff that actual ground situation may be changed by the defendant in case forcible possession of the same is taken from the plaintiff. The second application has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 10th January, 2018 primarily on the ground that earlier as well application at the behest of plaintiff has been rejected by the court by detailed order dated 25th September, 2017 on the same pleading raised by plaintiff and therefore there was no merit found in the second application for issuance of commission. The revisional court has also taken essentially the same grounds for rejecting revision preferred by plaintiff. 10. From a perusal of record, it transpires that the purpose of issuance of commission at the behest of plaintiff in both applications was to ascertain alleged possession of plaintiff over the property in dispute. The revisional court has also taken essentially the same grounds for rejecting revision preferred by plaintiff. 10. From a perusal of record, it transpires that the purpose of issuance of commission at the behest of plaintiff in both applications was to ascertain alleged possession of plaintiff over the property in dispute. For proper appreciation of the present dispute, it would be necessary to advert to the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code pertaining to issuance of commission which is in the following terms:- " Commission to make local investigations.- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules." 11. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that commission to make local investigations can be permitted by the court where it deems local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or ascertaining market value of any property, or amount of any mesne profit or damages or annual net profits. The purpose of issuance of commission as such is evident from the conditions indicated thereunder itself which is only for the purposes of elucidating primarily any matter in dispute. The provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code do not make it applicable for the purposes of collection of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 12. Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Remco Industrial Workers House Building Coop. Society v. Lakshmeesha M. and others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 666 ; A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 3167 has already held that a plaintiff is liable to succeed on his own footing and not on the weakness of the defendant. As such the pleadings made in the plaint are required to be corroborated or substantiated by evidence which is also required to be placed on record by the plaintiff himself. As such the pleadings made in the plaint are required to be corroborated or substantiated by evidence which is also required to be placed on record by the plaintiff himself. The only exception in such a case could be where such evidence is beyond reach of the plaintiff or is in such a secured place that he would normally not have access thereto but for the issuance of commission for nature indicated in such a case, it would be necessary and incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead particularly as to why the plaintiff could not have access to such evidence which would therefore require issuance of commission for the purposes of collection of such evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padam Sen (supra) has clearly held that it is not the business of court to collect evidence for party or even to protect the rival party from evil consequences of making forged entry in the books of accounts. It was held that defendants request which amounted to courts collecting documentary evidence which the defendants considered to be in their favour at that point of time could not be permitted. Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment are as follows:- "15. It cannot, however, be lost sight of that the burden to prove title and claim for possession of specific land in Survey No. 132/2 was initially on the plaintiff. Defendant 1 in the written statement contested the claim of the plaintiff and claimed title in itself. The grant of occupancy rights in favour of tenant Muniyappa contained in the order dated 28-5-1965 (Ext. D-3) was produced in the trial court without objection from the plaintiff and allowed to be exhibited and marked as Ext. D-3. When such a document of grant of suit land to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in favour of Defendant 1 was before the trial court, it was necessary for it to consider its effect on the subsequent grant dated 9-12-1969 (Ext. P-1) in favour of the erstwhile inamdar. The legal position not in dispute is that if the suit land in Survey No. 132/2 — area 1 acre 3 guntas had already been granted by the order dated 28-5-1965 (Ext. D-3) to the tenant Muniyappa, the same land could not have formed part of the grant to the extent of 1/7th share to the erstwhile inamdar in the order dated 9-12-1969 (Ext. D-3) to the tenant Muniyappa, the same land could not have formed part of the grant to the extent of 1/7th share to the erstwhile inamdar in the order dated 9-12-1969 (Ext. P-1). A clear legal issue, based on an earlier grant dated 28-5-1965 (Ext. D-3) and the subsequent grant dated 9-12-1969 (Ext. P-1) with the identity of the land under the two grants did arise before the trial court as well as the appellate court. The said issue has not been answered by any of the two courts below. The plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of its own case and not on the weakness of the case of the defendant. In opposing the prayer for remand, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Privy Council in Kanda v. Waghu [ AIR 1950 PC 68 : 77 IA 15]. The contention advanced is that since pleadings based on Ext. D-3 were not raised in the written statement of Defendant 1 and no issue on the basis of Ext. D-3 having been raised in the trial court, this Court should not remit the matter for retrial on the said issue." 13. The same analogy has also been drawn by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parvez Akhtar (supra) in the following manner:- "11. In other words, the object of local investigation is not so much to collect evidence, which maybe taken in the court, but just to facilitate the appreciation of the evidence led or nature of the controversy between the parties or to facilitate appreciation of any point, which is left doubtful in the evidence of the parties before the court. The object of issuance of commission is that some assistance may be derived from those facts found actually after the investigation by the Commissioner on the spot, but that investigation must be in respect of the matter in dispute and not otherwise. The legislature required that the discretion of the court can be exercised following all conditions with a view to obtain certain facts investigated by the Commissioner which promises peculiar facts and which can be had from the spot inspection itself, but that must be directly in respect of any matter in dispute. This is with a view to enable the court to properly and correctly appreciate evidence on record. This is with a view to enable the court to properly and correctly appreciate evidence on record. The report of the Commissioner clarifies and explains any point which might appear to be doubtful after the evidence has been led by the parties. The provision of Order XXVI Rule 9, presuppose evidence on the record and independent evidence, led by the parties, which requires elucidation." 14. Various high courts in the country have also elucidated the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 in the same manner as indicated in the judgments rendered by High Court of Himanchal Pradesh in the case of Naseeb Deen (Supra) and H.V. Nangendrappa (supra) by the High Court of Karnataka. 15. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that application for issuance of commission to conduct an investigation and examination regarding possession of parties to a dispute would not be maintainable in terms of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code as observed herein above particularly when there is no explanation furnished by the plaintiff that he could not have access to any documents required for proving his possession over suit property. Even otherwise, it is impossible for a commission to decide possession of a particular party to dispute over the suit property only on the basis of a cursory examination. 16. It has already been observed herein above that applications under Order XXVI Rule 9 can not be allowed merely for purposes of facilitating the case of one or the other party and it is not the business of the courts to discharge burden of evidence of either party. 17. So far as judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioner in the case of New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti (supra) is concerned, the pronouncement of law in the said judgment is that court can not prevent a party from adducing best evidence if such evidence can be gathered with the help of commission. The judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioner is clearly correct in terms of provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and does not take a contrary view to the earlier judgment of this Court that possession of parties over property in dispute can not be determined by issuance of commission. As such the petitioner does not derive any benefit from the aforesaid judgment. 18. As such the petitioner does not derive any benefit from the aforesaid judgment. 18. Considering the judgment on the point and law as discussed herein above, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders and as such the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.