1. ' This revision is directed against an order dated 30-5-1977 of the learned District Judge, Rawalakote whereby a Commission was issued on an application moved by the plaintiff-appellant and accordingly Tehsildar Rawalakote having been appointed as a Commissioner was directed to make the measurement of Survey No, 4 situate in village Maira measuring 17 kanals and 17 marlas out of which allegedly a portion measuring 3 kanals and 15 marlas was the disputed property and this was so done in order to separate the above-noted survey number from Survey No, 3 adjacent to it and thus distinguishing the former by metes and bounds. The suit of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the land in suit was taken into possession illegally by the defendants allegedly in the year 1964 for possession of which a claim was accordingly made by way of instant suit.
2. ' The suit was resisted by the defendants alleging that the disputed land is not a portion of Survey No, 4 as claimed by the plaintiffs but it is included in Survey No, 3 owned by them and it has further been asserted by them that they have been in possession of the disputed land even prior to the last Settlement and as such they have acquired the right of ownership of the same by way of prescription.
3. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court was not competent to issue a Commission for a Local Inspection etc., to be made. According to him, it is only the Court of first instance which is competent to issue a Commission. Moreover, appointment of a Commission amounts to taking of additional evidence which was not justifiable to be taken to fill in a lacuna caused in the case of the plaintiff's. ' The learned counsel in order to substantiate his first contention referred to Note 2 on rule 9, Order XXVI, C. P. C. Commented upon by the Authors of the Code wherein it is laid down in the following words :- "An application under this rule should be made at the hearing of the suit. It cannot be made after the case is closed."
4. These were the only sentences referred to by the learned counsel but further commentary on the point involved was ignored by him. The learned Commentators, namely, Chitley and Appu Rao go on saying further at page 3558 of their Book (C. P. C. VII Edition) that the Appellate Court ha the powers to issue a Commission for a local investigation under this rule read with section 107, C. P. C.
5. Besides, in Note 1 on rule 27, Order XLI o the same Book, it is written therein that this rule does not apply so as to forbid the Appellate Court from doing some of the things out of which the relevant thing is reproduced below:-
(b) To issue a Commission for a local investigation."
6. ' This shows that the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner in relation to the additional evidence is also not well-footed. The aim of the Local Investigation to be carried out by the Commission is to elucidate any point having not been made clear on the evidence taken before the Court. In the circumstances of this case, the order under revision was appropriately made by the trial Court. However, it will be added to the information of the Commissioner that while measuring Survey No, 4, identity of Survey No, 3 should also be kept in view.
7. ' In the result, this revision petition is dismissed with costs.