- (1.)I do not think that any interference is called for with the order of the lower Court.
(2.)In this revision by the plaintiff, he is challenging the order of the trial Court which rejected the application for the issuance of a commission to find out as to who is in possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit is for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff 's possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant contends that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed an application for issuance of a commission under O.26 of C.P.C. to find out as to who is in possession of the property which was rejected by the lower Court. Plaintiff has challenged the same.
(3.)I think, the lower Court is right that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of the property. Under O.26, C.P.C., a Commissioner can be appointed to make local investigation to investigate the facts or other materials which are found in the property and to make a report in regard to that matter to the Court. In a suit for injunction the question as to who is in possession of the property, is a matter to be decided by the Court on the basis of the evidence, either oral or documentary, to be adduced by the parties. That function cannot be delegated to a Commissioner who cannot find out as to who is in possession of the property. Accordingly, the lower Court was right in rejecting the application.