Vinay Kumar Mathur, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel, representing respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Manish Kumar, Advocate, representing respondent no. 1 and perused record.
(2.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the respondent no. 1, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 and 10 for commission has been rejected. It has been contended that a plea was taken by the petitioner that the applicant has several shops. To verify this fact, a request has been made for issuing a commission. The court below has rejected the application on the ground that the application has been moved for causing delay in disposal of the case as evidence of the defendant was in progress.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for bringing the correct facts on record the report of the commission was essential. The impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises. Earlier to this application, no other application for commission has been moved.;