(1.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners-original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 2006 has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.2.2007 passed below Exh. 35 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the application for appointing the Court Commissioner for ascertaining the aspect of possession in respect of the suit premises.
(3.) THE plaintiff was constrained to file the suit in question for declaration that the sale deed dated 4.2.2000 was null and void and sought perpetual injunction in respect to the suit premises during the pendency of the proceedings and pendency of the application Exh. 5 for interim injunction, the plaintiff preferred application Exh. 35 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Court Commissioner for preparing panchnama of the disputed land, which came to be rejected by the concerned court vide order dated 23.2.2007 by learned Principal Civil Judge, which is impugned in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.