WPMS No. 1577 of 2009 Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.08.2008, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar), in Suit No. 263 of 2006, and order dated 10.09.2008, passed by the District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil Revision No. 366 of 2008. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff / respondent Phool Singh instituted Suit No. 263 of 2006 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.07.2006. Present petitioner is the defendant in said suit. It appears that during the pendency of suit, the defendant moved an application 42C for issuing commission for spot inspection of the plots (which were sold by the sale deed in question). The trial court has rejected said application on the ground that at that stage it was not necessary to issue commission as there is no relief of possession sought by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by said order, the defendant filed civil revision before the District Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed on the technical ground that the revision was not maintainable against interlocutory order. Hence, this petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the order passed by the revisional court, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the revisional court’s order as the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As far as the impugned order passed by the trial court on 06.08.2008 on 42C is concerned, the trial court has simply refused to issue commission, as at the stage, it was moved, the spot inspection of the property was not required in the trial. The powers of the court under Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code are discretionary in nature. Having gone through the order passed by the trial court, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court in refusing the application 42C, in the above circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition has no force. The writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that if at later stage the trial court finds it necessary to issue commission, it may do so on application of the parties or suo motu. (Stay Application No. 8066 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (P.C.P., J.) 17.09.2009 NS