ORDER : 1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the petitioner – original plaintiff, with the following prayers : “8(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside order dated 05.07.2023 passed below an application at Exh.10 by the learned Additional Small Cause Judge, Surat in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 636 of 2022 and further pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to cooperate in the proceedings of court commission order by the Hon’ble Court (Annexure-’A’). (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Court Commissioner viz., P.P. Kushwaha, Asstt. Small Cause Court, Surat to act as Court Commissioner as per order of the learned Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Surat and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 not to interfere in the court commission of the property in question by Mr. P.P. Kushwaha, Asstt., Small Cause Court, Surat to act as Court Commissioner as per order of the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Surat; (C) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the court commissioner Mr. P.P. Kushwaha to register a complaint before Police Inspector, Lalgate Police Station for restraining his legal duty to complete court commission at property in question in the interest of justice; (D) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other and further orders of grant of relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;” 2. Heard learned advocates. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Daxesh D. Barot for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court for appointment of the Court Commissioner below application Exh.10, whereby it is specifically stated that the Court Commissioner – Mr. P.P. Kushwaha, Asstt. Heard learned advocates. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Daxesh D. Barot for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court for appointment of the Court Commissioner below application Exh.10, whereby it is specifically stated that the Court Commissioner – Mr. P.P. Kushwaha, Asstt. Small Cause Court was appointed by the learned trial Court and pursuant to his appointment, he has served a notice to defendant No.1 on 03.01.2023 with regard to carry out the court commission on 04.01.2023 at 08:30 a.m.; and that the defendant and his advocate were present and obstructed the process of court commissioning; and that when the Court Commissioner has requested them to open the lock, which was applied by defendant No.1 on the iron grill attached upon the main entrance door, defendant No.1 has refused to open the said lock and/or give key of the said lock; and that the Court Commissioner could not carry out the inventory of the premises in question; and that the application below Exh.10 is therefore preferred by the plaintiff to permit the Court Commissioner to break the lock applied at the front door of the premises in question by the defendant. 3.2 He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the earlier order passed below application - Exh.6 dated 29.12.2022 in the suit by the learned trial Court, which was for appointment of Court Commissioner to place on record the exact situation of the rooms currently, to take measurement of it, to make sketch thereof, etc., whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the said application and appointed Mr. P.P. Kushwaha, Asstt., Small Cause Court as the Court Commissioner for the said work. In the said application Exh.6, it is specifically alleged that the other side has broken the lock of the room and made a wall overnight. He has also stated the necessary details about the necessity of the appointment of Court Commissioner to carry out the inventory of the premises in question. In the said application Exh.6, it is specifically alleged that the other side has broken the lock of the room and made a wall overnight. He has also stated the necessary details about the necessity of the appointment of Court Commissioner to carry out the inventory of the premises in question. 3.3 He has also submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error, as he has again, vide application Exh.10, prayed for the court commission to carry out the inventory of the premises by breaking the lock applied on the door of the premises in question, as the learned trial Court has already granted earlier vide order below application – Exh.6 to carry out the inventory and at that point of time, the defendant has refused to open the lock of the premises in question though the key is with him and therefore, the application Exh.10 is required to be considered. 3.4 He has also submitted that the Court Commissioner appointed vide order of the learned trial Court below Exh.6 application was prevented by defendant No.1 by not opening the lock applied by him at the premises in question. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has even though rejected the application Exh.10, which is erroneous and therefore, he prays to allow this application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ansari for the respondent has strongly opposed this petition. By referring the affidavit in reply filed by him in this petition, he has submitted that earlier, a suit being Small Cause Civil Suit No.519 of 2022 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, wherein an application for appointment of Court Commissioner was made by the plaintiff, which was rejected by the concerned learned trial Court and thereafter, without mentioning all these details, the present suit i.e. Small Cause Civil Suit No.636 of 2022 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, whereby the Court has initially granted Exh.6 application and appointed a Court Commissioner to carry out the inventory of the premises in question. He has submitted that upon serving with the notice, defendant and his lawyer viz., Mr. Zuberbhai Kapadia were present at the premises in question at that time and has raised objections, but they have not created any hindrance in carrying out the inventory. He has submitted that upon serving with the notice, defendant and his lawyer viz., Mr. Zuberbhai Kapadia were present at the premises in question at that time and has raised objections, but they have not created any hindrance in carrying out the inventory. He has wrongly impleaded as party respondent No.2 in the present petition as he is not a party to the suit proceeding before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present petition is required to be rejected on the ground of mis-joinder of the parties. He has submitted that the inventory of the premises in question is required to be carried out and not the things lying inside the premises and therefore, it would not be open for the Court Commissioner to carry out the inventory of the premises in question. 4.2 He has further submitted that the application itself is barred by res judicata in view of earlier order passed in different suit and this application can be considered as third application and the Court Commissioner has satisfied that his work is done appropriately in that suit and therefore also, no interference by this Court to direct the Court Commissioner to break the lock and carry out the inventory of the premises in question is required. 4.3 He has also submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application below Exh.10 and therefore, he prays to dismiss this petition. 5.1 I have considered rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also considered the documents available on record. I have perused the impugned order as well as application - Exh.10 on record along with application – Exh.6 and the order passed thereon. From the record, it transpires that essentially, the suit is with regard to the rented premises i.e. residential property, whereby one of the allegations is that the respondent herein has constructed a wall inside the premises in question and thereafter, install an iron grill upon the main door and therefore, inventory of the premises in question is sought for by the plaintiff by filing an application Exh.6 in the suit, seeking appointment of Court Commissioner, which is granted by the learned trial Court. The said order was not challenged by the defendant before any higher forum. The said order was not challenged by the defendant before any higher forum. Further, when the Court Commissioner was carrying out the inventory, it is found that one lawyer Mr.Zuberbhai Kapadia – present respondent No.2 has objected the process of carrying out the inventory on the ground that there are several litigation going on between the parties and thereby they did not cooperate the process. When the Court Commissioner has shown the order of the Court, thereafter the process of inventory started, but at that point of time, it was found that lock was put on the iron grill, which is the entry point of the premises in question and the key was with defendant. When the Court Commissioner has requested the defendant to open the lock, the defendant has refused to open it and therefore, the Court Commissioner could not carry out the inventory. This is a matter of record, which is undisputed. 5.2 Under the circumstances, the plaintiff has again filed an application Exh.10 to carry out the inventory of the premises in question, which is rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order. 5.3 It is noted that the Court Commissioner, appointed by the learned trial Court, was prevented from entering into the premises in question by not opening the lock applied by the defendant at the iron grill put up on the front side of the main door, which is the entry point for entering into the premises in question and thereby obstructed the process of the Court at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it is required to be broken the lock applied by the defendant for carrying out the inventory of the premises in question and for complying with the order/direction issued by the learned trial Court below application Exh.6. The defendant cannot hijack the process of the law in any manner. 5.4 While rejecting the application Exh.10, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that by virtue of the earlier order, the Court Commissioner could not carry out the inventory of the premises in question due to obstruction made by the defendant and his lawyer by not opening the lock. 5.4 While rejecting the application Exh.10, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that by virtue of the earlier order, the Court Commissioner could not carry out the inventory of the premises in question due to obstruction made by the defendant and his lawyer by not opening the lock. In the present case, the premises in question is a constructed premises and it is specifically a case that some construction is carried out in the rented premises without permission of the present petitioner, therefore, the inventory is necessary to ascertain the said fact. However, looking to the conduct of the present respondents, the Court Commissioner could not carry out the court commission at that time. This high-handed approach shown by the defendant is required to be deprecated. The learned trial Court should take pragmatic approach in such a matter by considering the fact that when the Court Commissioner is appointed, cooperation was not given by the defendant and on the contrary, the hindrance is created in the work to be carried out by the Court Commissioner, which clearly hampers the process of law. This is not required to be taken lightly. 5.5 Considering the conduct of the respondents and considering the nature of grievance of the parties concerned as well as considering the fact that on earlier occasion, the order to carry out the inventory is not complied with in its true spirit, the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Ansari for the respondents are ill-founded and are required to be rejected. 5.6 In view of above and under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interference is required to be called for by this Court in the impugned order passed below Exh.10 application by the learned trial Court and therefore, this petition needs to be allowed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 6.1 The present petition is allowed partly. 6.2 The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed below application at Exh.10 by the learned Additional Small Cause Judge, Surat in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 636 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. 6.3 The application Exh.10 filed in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 636 of 2022 is hereby allowed. 6.1 The present petition is allowed partly. 6.2 The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed below application at Exh.10 by the learned Additional Small Cause Judge, Surat in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 636 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. 6.3 The application Exh.10 filed in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 636 of 2022 is hereby allowed. Consequently, it is directed that the very Court Commissioner, who was appointed by the learned trial Court vide order below application Exh.6, shall carry out the inventory of the premises in question and shall submit the appropriate report before the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today. 6.4 It is expected that the defendant shall cooperate the process of administration of justice. 6.5 If the defendant will not cooperate the proceedings, the learned trial Court is directed to break the lock and carry out the inventory of the premises in question. 6.6 It is open for the learned trial Court to take appropriate note and pass appropriate order in this regard against the erring person, who hinders the administration of justice. 6.7 In view of above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to the conduct of respondent No.1 – original defendant, this is a fit case to impose cost upon respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-, as cost, before the learned concerned trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today and the leaned trial Court can pass appropriate order regarding such amount of cost. 7. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Ansari for the respondents prays to stay the operation of this order for a period of four weeks. 8. Looking to the conduct of the respondent/s as noted above, this Court does not think it fit to stay the operation of this order. Let the suit proceeding pending before the learned trial Court shall be proceeded further. The request for stay is therefore rejected.