`IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.124 of 2008. Date of decision: 18.07.2008. Darshan Lal ….Petitioner Versus Jaswant Singh and Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: M/s.K.D. Sood and Sanjeev Sood, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiff’s petition against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division)Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, on an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Local Commissioner. The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that no commission could be appointed as the Court is not authorized to issue any commission for the reasons as contained in the judgment. The learned trial Court is clearly wrong in dismissing the application. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 This Court in Bali Ram vs. Mela Ram and another, AIR 2003 HP 87 has considered the provisions holding:- “13. Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as `the Code’), empowers the Court to issue commission to make local investigation which may be required for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Though the object of the local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be taken in the Court, but the purpose is to obtain such evidence, which from its peculiar nature, can only be had on the spot with a view to elucidate any point which is left doubtful on the evidence produced before the Court. To issue a commission under Rule 9 of Order 26 of the code, it is not necessary that either or both the parties must apply for issue of commission. The Court can issue local commission suo motu, if, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed necessary that a local investigation is required and is proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Though exercise of these powers is discretionary with the Court, but in case the local investigation is requisite and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be exercised so that a final 3 and just decision is rendered in the case.” The reasoning of the trial Court to say the least is skewed. In these circumstances, the judgment of the trial Court cannot be accepted. One of the objections taken by the respondent is that the appointment of Local Commissioner at this stage would be for gathering evidence for the plaintiff. As I have held, the reasoning of the learned trial Court cannot be sustained on any ground. This argument cannot be considered at this stage as the question of maintainability of the suit etc. is still a matter for determination by the Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations that the rejection of the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be raised by the plaintiff in appeal urging that the rejection of the application was against law. There shall be no order as to costs. July 18, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.