1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8412/2007 Pritam Singh. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. Date : 19.12.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RS Gill, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved against the order dated 1.6.2007 by which the trial court rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of site Commissioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court decided the suit against which the appeal was preferred and the matter was remanded to the trial court after framing an issue. The petitioner submitted application and requested that since the issue involved is with respect to one water course and its level, therefore, the Commissioner be appointed. It is submitted that the trial court 2 committed error of law by rejecting the application. It is also submitted that only an expert person from the irrigation department could have examined this aspect of the matter and that would be a relevant opinion of the expert for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons given in the impugned order. It is clear from the facts of the case that on earlier occasion on 1.4.2003, an application was submitted for appointment of Commissioner upon which the Junior Engineer of Panchayat Samiti was appointed Commissioner to submit the report about level of the water course which already has been marked as Ex.A/3 and A/4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, said report was obtained from the officers of the defendants. Since the petitioner also could have produced an evidence of expert by obtaining report from the competent Engineer and, therefore, I do not find that the trial court committed any error in refusing to appoint Commissioner for site inspection in the facts of the case and in fact, 3 in the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner wants to collect evidence from the Commissioner also which cannot be permitted. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya