ORDER : 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer affirming the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Assistant District Collector, Sanchore, in Revenue Suit No.56/2023, whereby his application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) has been rejected. 2. Briefly narrated, facts appertain are that the petitioner has filed a revenue suit for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction under sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) with an assertion that the respondent-defendents are likely to dispossess him from the property in question. 3. Alongwith the suit aforesaid, the petitioner had also filed an application for temporary injunction under section 212 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of application for temporary injunction, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC and prayed that a Commissioner be appointed to give a site report so as to ascertain the factual position in relation to possession of subject land. 4. The aforesaid application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC has been rejected on 19.11.2024 by observing that the Court cannot appoint a Commissioner to collect the evidence in relation to possession for the parties. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2024, the petitioner preferred a revision being Revision Petition No.8628/2024, which came to be rejected by the Board of Revenue on 21.02.2025 by observing thus:- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering petitioner’s basic plea that the respondent-defendents are likely to dispossess him, it was imperative upon the trial Court to have accepted petitioner’s application so that possession by either of the parties over the subject land could be ascertained. 7. He further submitted that the petitioner has lodged an FIR under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Cr.P.C ’) apprehending his forceful dispossession by the respondents and therefore, the trial Court ought to have appointed a Commissioner. 8. It was also argued by Mr. 7. He further submitted that the petitioner has lodged an FIR under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Cr.P.C ’) apprehending his forceful dispossession by the respondents and therefore, the trial Court ought to have appointed a Commissioner. 8. It was also argued by Mr. Buch that the scope of the provisions under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC is entirely different than the provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC and the principle that the Court should not appoint a Commissioner to collect evidence of possession for the parties is applicable only qua the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC and not qua application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC. 9. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied upon judgments of this Court as well as of Delhi High Court, which are noted hereinfra:- (i) Ranjeet & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1191/2014), decided on 25.04.2016. (ii) Ravindra Nath & Ors. Vs. Piyush Kumar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5280/2019), decided on 03.07.2019. (iii) Rajkumar & Anr. Vs. Narendra Kumar Kansliwal (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8792/2013), decided on 15.07.2013. (iv) Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chand Kohli & Ors. (RSA No.136/2004), decided on 12.12.2007. 10. Heard. 11. According to this Court, the expression used in Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC may be phrasally different than the language used in Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC but in substance both are same. 12. The requirement and purpose of appointment of Commissioner for detention, preservation or inspection of subject-matter of the suit or for deciding the suit finally under Order XXXIX Rule 7 vis-a-vis purpose of appointment of Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 for the purpose of making local investigation is same. 13. The Commissioner is appointed for the purpose of aiding/ facilitating the Court so as to collect the information and perform specific tasks which are crucial in the effective disposal of the case and to deliver justice. Petitioner’s contention in the declaratory suit filed by him so also in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC was to ensure that he was not dispossessed from the subject land and in such process, he has asserted that he was having possession over the subject land. 14. Petitioner’s contention in the declaratory suit filed by him so also in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC was to ensure that he was not dispossessed from the subject land and in such process, he has asserted that he was having possession over the subject land. 14. For adjudication of the declaratory suit finally or to determine the application for temporary injunction filed under section 212 of the Act of 1955, burden lies upon the parties to lead requisite evidence of possession and/or to produce documentary and oral evidence. It is a settled position of law that the parties will have to prove their own case and the Court will not function in the aid of party for collecting evidence. 15. In the instant case, petitioner has filed application for appointment of Commissioner to ascertain factual position with respect to possession over the contentious land, which in the opinion of this Court, is subservient to evidence to be led by the parties. Simply on the basis of the assertions made by the petitioner in his application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC, wherein he has claimed to have possession over the subject land, the trial Court cannot appoint a Commissioner so as to serve his cause. 16. Trial Court had rightly rejected petitioner’s application for appointment of Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC as entertainment of such prayer at this stage will be nothing short of collection of evidence prior to recording of evidence of respective parties. Similarly, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the revision petition so filed by the petitioner. 17. So far as judgments of this Court cited by Mr. Buch are concerned, none of the judgment holds as a matter of law that the Commissioner can be appointed under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC for collection of evidence. Each application has to be decided in light of the facts and pleadings involved in such case. 17.1 In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), while allowing the Commissioner to inspect petitioner’s premise, Court specifically directed not to collect evidence in favour of either party. 17.2 So far as the case of Ranjeet (supra) is concerned, Court held that appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of taking measurements, did not amount to collection of evidence. 17.1 In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), while allowing the Commissioner to inspect petitioner’s premise, Court specifically directed not to collect evidence in favour of either party. 17.2 So far as the case of Ranjeet (supra) is concerned, Court held that appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of taking measurements, did not amount to collection of evidence. 17.3 In the case of Ravindra Nath (supra), the Court allowed the application for appointment of Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 for identification of the land. 18. So far as judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Delhi High Court in Para No.24 has considered the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Kishore H. Desai vs. Lilawati Virji Chheda & Ors., reported in MANU/MH/0333/1989. 19. A perusal of the judgment aforesaid and the facts of the case involved before the Delhi High Court reveals that the case before Delhi High Court was not that of application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC and it was the second appeal in which the Delhi High Court had an occasion of dealing with effect of evidence pursuant to the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC and while doing so, a part of the Bombay High Court judgment has been quoted. The issue before the Bombay High Court was whether a Commissioner can furnish his report behind the back of the parties and whether such reports can be received in evidence or not. 20. Since the facts in the present case are entirely different from the facts involved before the Delhi High Court, said judgment is also not applicable. 21. The issue before the Bombay High Court was whether a Commissioner can furnish his report behind the back of the parties and whether such reports can be received in evidence or not. 20. Since the facts in the present case are entirely different from the facts involved before the Delhi High Court, said judgment is also not applicable. 21. In catena of judgments, including in the case of Capricorn Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd vs. Sunil Kumar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4652/2013), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in identical factual matrix, has affirmed rejection of application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC by the petitioner therein, while observing thus:- “In any dispute of the present nature, unless on account of the oral and documentary evidence and/or the factual matrix, which comes on record, the court feels the requirement for appointment of a Commissioner for clarification of a particular aspect of the matter, just for the sake of bringing on record the factual position, which otherwise is the burden of the parties to a suit, a local Commissioner cannot be appointed. The principle that Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence is well established and once the trial court having considered the entire aspect and found no reason or cause to sent a Commissioner or to have the site inspected, the order cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of law or suffering from any jurisdictional error, requiring interference by this Court.” 22. The appointment of Commissioner is completely a discretionary power of the Court and a party cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. If the Court is of the opinion that the report of the Commissioner can help it in arriving at an a proper and just decision, it can issue the commission. But such exercise of discretion cannot be normally interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 23. The present writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 24. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.