Govind Mathur, J. - (1.)DEFENDANT respondent No. 1 Jairoop Ram preferred a suit for specific performance on basis of a receipt dt. 27.06.1994. An application to have temporary injunction is also preferred by him with a prayer that the defendants be restrained from causing any kind of hindrance with the rights of the plaintiff in suit property and further they be restrained from causing any kind of interference, breakage etc. in the suit property. In reply to the application the plaintiff petitioner came with the case that he is having possession over the suit property and in revenue records the same is entered in his name. He also denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. An application then was filed by the plaintiff respondent before the trial Court as per provisions of Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure to authorise a person to enter upon the suit property to obtain full information about possession on that. Learned trial Court by order dt. 30.04.2013 accepted the application with a direction for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the site after informing the parties and further to produce a site map before the Court. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.)THE submission of the petitioner is that no direction could have been given by the learned trial Court for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the site and to submit site plan. It is asserted that as per Rule 67 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1986") no Commissioner could have been appointed with a view to create evidence in favour of the plaintiff. To substantiate the argument learned counsel has placed reliance upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Kripal Industries Raisingh Nagar, reported in : 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 245.
Per contra, the submission of counsel for the respondents is that in the instant matter application is preferred under Order 39 Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure just to verify factual status of the site, as such, there is no question of creating any kind of evidence.

(3.)HEARD counsel for the parties.