Exercise of Power Under Order XXVI Rule 9 Permissible to Elucidate Possession and Property Status

The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 176 of 2026 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to prevent the petitioners (original defendants) from dispossessing them or interfering with their possession of the suit property without due process

Along with the suit, the respondents filed an application (Exh. 6) under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for the appointment of a Court Commissioner, which the Trial Court allowed ex-parte on May 7, 2026

The petitioners subsequently filed an application (Exh. 9) to recall the appointment order

The Trial Court rejected the recall application on May 22, 2026

The petitioners challenged both orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction or acted contrary to law by appointing a Court Commissioner at the initial stage of the suit to clarify the status of the suit property

2. Whether the impugned orders warranted interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which empowers the court to appoint a commission for local investigation to elucidate any matter in dispute

While this power is typically exercised in boundary disputes, it is meant to clarify the factual situation of the property

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross errors of law, perversity, or jurisdictional excesses, and is not to be used for correcting mere errors of law, as established in M/s. Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) and Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal (2013)

The court analyzed the petitioners' objection that the commission was sought merely to collect evidence; however, the court noted that the petitioners themselves stated in their application (Exh. 9) that the plaintiff had "illegally possessed" a portion of the land and constructed a shed

This admission indicated a genuine need to clarify the physical situation of the property

The Trial Court’s observation—that a panchnama and map would not affect the substantive rights or title of the defendants—was sound

Consequently, there was no "perversity" or "gross error" in the Trial Court’s decision to maintain the appointment of the Commissioner to "clarify the present situation"

It held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or patent illegality that would justify interference under Article 227

The Court upheld the Trial Court’s orders dated May 7, 2026, and May 22, 2026, and declined to grant any interim stay or relief

No order as to costs was made