A local commissioner cannot be appointed after evidence closes merely to gather additional evidence.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 229/2011, sought a declaration of title by adverse possession and a permanent injunction.

After evidence had concluded and the suit was posted for arguments, they applied under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for a Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule ‘B’ property and record its existing physical features and status.

The trial court rejected the application, and the plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers the court to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation to elucidate a matter in dispute.

That power is not intended to enable a party to collect evidence or fill gaps in evidence already adduced.

In a claim for title by adverse possession, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the necessary ingredients of that claim and entitlement to the relief sought on the pleadings and evidence.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference absent illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The Court found that the requested inspection would establish only the property’s existing physical features or status, which, by themselves, could not prove title by adverse possession or entitlement to an injunction.

Because the application was made after completion of evidence and when the matter was set down for arguments, allowing the inspection in the circumstances would permit the plaintiffs to gather additional evidence after trial.

The Court therefore found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order warranting supervisory intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.