JUDGMENT : VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in O.S. No. 309 of 2022 Karamchand vs. Jeevanram and Others and further the order dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure No. 2) passed by District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No. 28/2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit being O.S. No. 309/2022 against the respondents/defendants; that respondent no. 1/ defendant no. 1 is real brother of petitioner/plaintiff while respondent nos.2 and 3 are the persons to whom another brother of petitioner/plaintiff and respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 had sold the part of the property belonging to father of the petitioner/plaintiff; that, in the suit relief was claimed for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the respondents/defendants thereby restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property shown within ABGH and CDJK in the site-plan attached with the plaint and not to create third party interest over the same; that, along with the suit application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed by the petitioner/plaintiff wherein the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo. 3. He would further submit that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w 151 C.P.C. to call for report of the spot through Court Amin.; that, the trial court vide impugned order dated 04.03.2023 dismissed the application; that, being aggrieved, petitioner/plaintiff filed the revision, however, the same has also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the trial court and the revisional court have erred in dismissing the application as the survey report is necessary to ascertain the actual position at the spot in order to decide the controversy involved in the suit. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available. 6. While dismissing the application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w 151 C.P.C., the trial court at para-5 of the impugned order dated 04.03.2023, has observed that the photographs of the suit property have already been filed and in case there is any change in the nature of the property at the spot, the same could be ascertained by evidence and not by report of Court Amin. 7. 7. The revisional court affirmed the findings of the trial court and further observed that the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not meant to collect evidence in favour of any party or strengthen one’s case. 8. In the considered view of this Court, there is no infirmity or manifest error in the orders passed by the courts below. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in the suit property with averment that he is in possession of the suit property. It is for the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of his plaint averments in order to strengthen his case. The Court assistance cannot be taken for such purpose. It is not the business of the Court to generate evidence on petitioner/plaintiff’s behalf. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Same is hereby dismissed in limine.