Courts may appoint a local commissioner where disputed boundaries require demarcation to determine encroachment.

The plaintiff sued for declaration of title and permanent injunction over land including Khasra Nos. 710/1 and 710/2.

The defendant claimed the remaining 0.33 acre of original Khasra No. 710 as Khasra No. 710/3, alleging that the plaintiff had encroached upon it.

Revenue demarcation proceedings produced reports that did not consistently identify the disputed parcel; a later report stated that the parcel had not been divided in the revenue map and its boundaries could not be fixed.

The defendant sought appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The trial court rejected the application, prompting this petition under Article 227.

1. Whether, in view of the disputed boundaries and conflicting or inconclusive revenue reports, a local investigation and demarcation report were required to resolve the parties’ dispute

2. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC warranted interference under Article 227

Order 26 Rule 9 CPC empowers a court to issue a commission for local investigation where it considers such investigation requisite or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute.

The court relied on Durga Prasad v. Parveen Foujdar, 1975 SCC OnLine MP 14, for the principle that a disputed allegation of encroachment ordinarily cannot be determined without an agreed map or a commissioner’s investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.

The defendant’s claim depended on identifying the location and boundaries of the alleged 0.33-acre Khasra No. 710/3.

Although an earlier demarcation sketch identified the parcel, subsequent revenue proceedings reported that it was not divided in the revenue map and its boundaries could not be determined.

The Court considered the parties’ competing claims and the inconclusive revenue material, and concluded that a proper demarcation report obtained in the parties’ presence was necessary to elucidate the dispute, even though the plaintiff’s evidence had not yet begun.

It allowed the petition, set aside the trial court’s order dated 02.05.2026, allowed the defendant’s application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, and directed the trial court to appoint a Commissioner, obtain a demarcation report, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.