Appointment of Local Commissioners for Factual Clarification Does Not Constitute Delegated Adjudication or Jurisdictional Error

The respondents (Malik) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction alleging the petitioners (Akhoon) interfered with land ownership and possession based on a 1995 gift deed.

The Trial Court initially granted an interim injunction in favor of Malik.

On appeal, the Principal District Judge modified this to a "status quo" order on July 3, 2025, noting the Trial Court failed to conduct a site inspection despite rival possession claims.

Subsequently, Malik filed an application under Section 151 CPC alleging Akhoon trespassed and built a tin shed on the night of September 19, 2025, violating the status quo.

On November 29, 2025, the Trial Court appointed the Tehsildar and District Agriculture Officer as Commissioners to investigate the spot.

Akhoon challenged this appointment order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC by appointing Commissioners to conduct a factual inquiry after a status quo order was passed.

2. Whether the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation is necessary to "elucidate" a matter in dispute when rival claims of possession and post-order alterations exist.

The Court applied Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, which empowers the court to appoint a commission for local investigation to "elucidate" matters in dispute.

It also invoked Order XXVI Rule 10A regarding commissions for scientific investigation, such as using satellite imagery.

Regarding supervisory jurisdiction, the Court relied on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) and Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd (2001), which dictate that Article 227 should be exercised sparingly, only to correct patent illegalities or jurisdictional errors, and not as a substitute for an appeal.

The High Court reasoned that the Trial Court’s order was purely procedural and intended to assist in factual determination, not to adjudicate substantive rights.

The court noted that the lower appellate court had previously criticized the lack of a site inspection, making the Trial Court's subsequent appointment of Commissioners a step in furtherance of judicial caution.

The Court found that the use of "scientific investigation" (via the Agriculture Officer) was justified to determine if agricultural activity (sowing/harvesting) had occurred under the disputed tin shed.

The Court rejected the argument that the Trial Court's order was a "parallel multidisciplinary investigation," clarifying that a Commissioner acts as an "extended arm of the Court" whose report is not binding and remains subject to rebuttal.

The Court held that the appointment of Commissioners did not constitute a jurisdictional error but was necessary for effective adjudication.

The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court with directions to proceed expeditiously, considering the Commissioners' reports strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by the High Court's observations. Both CM(M) No. 548/2025 and CM(M) No. 289/2025 were disposed of accordingly.