***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, whereby her application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction claiming herself to be owner of the property detailed in the headnote of the plaint. It was pleaded that she had constructed a house thereon and that the windows and ventilators of the said house opened towards the side of the pahi. The plaintiff sought appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspecting the spot and submitting a report regarding the existing position of the wall and shed allegedly constructed by the defendant over the land forming part of the pahi.

3.  The application was opposed and came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court. While doing so, the learned trial Court noticed that the plaintiff had already availed more than ten effective opportunities for leading her evidence, but instead of producing the evidence in support of her pleadings, she chose to move the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. It was further noticed that the existence and status of the pahi constituted a material factual aspect of the plaintiff's case and the burden to establish the same rested upon her. The learned trial Court, therefore, concluded that the proposed commission was essentially intended to enable the plaintiff to collect evidence in support of her case.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the same.

5. The power under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is discretionary. The provision enables the Court to issue a commission where a local investigation is requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating a matter in dispute. The object of such investigation is to assist the Court in understanding or elucidating a matter which, by its very nature, can appropriately be investigated at the spot. The provision, however, cannot be converted into a mechanism whereby a party, which bears the burden of proof, is permitted to procure evidence in support of its pleadings. The Supreme Court has explained that a commission is intended to act as a facilitator to the Court for ascertainment or elucidation of a matter in dispute and not as a substitute for the evidence which the parties are required to produce.

6. In the present case, the proposed investigation is not shown to be necessary for elucidating some technical or otherwise obscure matter which the Court cannot determine on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. On the contrary, the petitioner seeks to have the Local Commissioner ascertain the existence of the pahi and the alleged wall and shed constructed thereon. These are factual assertions constituting part of the foundation of the plaintiff's own case. The plaintiff cannot shift the burden of proving those assertions upon a Court-appointed Commissioner. Whether a pahi exists at the spot, what is its location and whether the construction allegedly raised by the defendant encroaches upon it are matters which, in the facts of the present case, have to be established by the plaintiff through legally admissible evidence.

7. It is equally significant that the application was moved after the plaintiff had already availed more than ten effective opportunities to lead evidence. The stage at which the application was moved is a relevant circumstance while examining the bona fides of a prayer for appointment of a Local Commissioner. Though there is no absolute bar under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC against appointment of a Commissioner after commencement of evidence, the belated filing of such an application, particularly when the applicant has had repeated opportunities to lead her evidence, assumes considerable significance. The power under Order XXVI Rule 9 cannot be invoked to fill up an evidentiary lacuna or to provide a party with an additional opportunity to establish a fact which she was required to prove herself.

8. The distinction between a commission for elucidation of an existing dispute and a commission for collection of evidence is well settled. In Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup, (2008) 8 SCC 671, the Supreme Court emphasised that the question whether a Local Commissioner should be appointed has to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case; appointment is not to follow mechanically merely because an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC has been filed. The discretion has to be exercised judicially and for the purpose contemplated by the provision.

9. In the present matter, the plaintiff has not demonstrated any circumstance warranting exercise of such discretion in her favour. More importantly, the application does not appear to have been necessitated by any subsequent development or by any circumstance beyond the plaintiff's control. Rather, the record, as noticed by the learned trial Court, shows that adequate opportunities had already been afforded to her to substantiate her case. Permitting a commission at this stage would, in effect, enable the plaintiff to secure material in support of her own pleadings instead of requiring her to discharge the burden which the law places upon her.

10. It also needs to be borne in mind that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not an appellate jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or its order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or such material irregularity as has resulted in failure of justice. Where the trial Court has considered the relevant circumstances and exercised its discretion on a legally permissible basis, the High Court would not substitute its own view merely because another view may also be possible.

11. In the present case, the learned trial Court has considered the nature of the suit, the purpose for which the commission was sought, the burden resting upon the plaintiff, and, significantly, the fact that more than ten effective opportunities had already been availed by her for leading evidence. The conclusion that the application was intended essentially to collect evidence cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be either perverse or contrary to law.

12. Consequently, no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity is discernible in the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

13. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********