A court may appoint a commissioner in execution to verify compliance amid conflicting official reports.

The petitioner had obtained an order under Section 307(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, directing removal of an allegedly unauthorised construction.

In execution, Municipal Corporation officers reported that the construction had been removed; the petitioner disputed that report.

A later joint inspection in another proceeding recorded that a double-storey structure remained, while respondents No. 2 and 3 suggested that it might have been reconstructed after the earlier removal.

The Executing Court rejected the petitioner’s application for a fresh spot inspection by a Government/Revenue Officer as Commissioner. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Executing Court should have appointed a Commissioner to ascertain the present physical condition of the disputed building, given the conflicting official reports and the respondents’ suggestion of reconstruction.

Whether a local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC may be ordered in execution proceedings to elucidate a disputed matter, rather than to enable a party to collect evidence.

Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers a court to issue a commission for local investigation when it considers such investigation requisite or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute.

Under Order XXVI Rule 18-A CPC, Order XXVI applies to proceedings in execution of a decree or order.

In Anurag Jaiswal v. Collector, Khandwa and Others, 2019 (2) MPLJ 637, the Court recognised that a commission may be appointed where necessary to clarify a disputed matter; doing so does not, by itself, amount to permitting a party to collect evidence.

The power is discretionary and may be exercised where the circumstances make local investigation expedient in the interests of justice.

The central execution question was whether the removal order had been complied with.

The record contained materially conflicting positions: the 2023 compliance report stated that the construction had been removed; the 2024 joint inspection recorded a double-storey structure; and respondents No. 2 and 3 later suggested it could have been reconstructed.

The earlier inspection, conducted in another proceeding, could not establish the building’s current condition, which was relevant to determining compliance.

Because the application sought an independent assessment of the site’s physical condition in light of conflicting official reports—not to fill a gap in the petitioner’s evidence—the Court held that a commission was warranted to elucidate the dispute.

It directed the Executing Court to appoint a competent Revenue Officer as Commissioner to inspect the disputed building in the parties’ presence, after notice, with the petitioner bearing the cost.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings.