ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---In a suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 against the petitioners for declaration, possession and permanent injunction claimed the ownership of the suit property with the mutation/Inteqal No.727, new Khewat No. 206, new Khatooni No. 220 and new Khasra Nos. 468/465/ 463/460/458/456/452/409/306 measuring 3551 square feet wherein the suit property is situated possession whereof is with the petitioners/ defendants before the respondent No.7, i.e. Senior Civil Judge-VI, Quetta ("trial court "), the petitioners after filing written statement filed an application unde r Order XXVI, Rule 1, C.P.C. for the appointment of a local commissioner for ascertaining as to whether the petitioners are in possession as owners of their respective properties as compared to the entries mentioned in Tatima chalked out in favor of the respondents. The said application was resisted by the respondents but was accepted by the trial court vide order dated 07.09.2020.
2. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. before the learned District Judge Quetta, which was transmitted to the file of learned Additional District Judge-V , Quetta ("revisional court"), whereby after hearing the parties, the petition filed by the respondents was accepted and while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners before the trial court under Order XXVI, Rule 1, C.P.C. for the appointment of a local commissioner , the order dated 07.09 .2020 passed by the trial court was set aside. Where-after the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner , the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through available record with their able assistance.
4. The trial court accepted the application for appointment of a local commissioner on the ground that the dispute between the parties to the extent of only possession of the petitioners as owners of their respective properties, appointed Mr. Qurban Ali, Advocate as local commissioner to visit the site along with the concerned Patwari with revenue record and determine that who is in possession of the property falling under tatima chalked out in favour of the respondents, while the learned revisional court/Additional District Judge-V Quetta set aside the order of trial court and the revision filed by the respond ents/ plaintif fs was accepted and the application for appointment of local commissioner filed by the petitioners/defendants before the trial court was dismissed on the ground that the trial court committed an error while accepting the application for the appointment of a local commissioner to find out the possession of the property as per Tatima chalked out in favour of the respondents, which is not permissible under the law to collect information without recording evidence at the early stage of the suit.
5. It transpires from the record that while filing their written statement, the petitioners also filed an application under Order XXVI, Rule 1, C.P.C. for the appointment of a local commissioner before the trial court. Neither the trial court framed any issues nor called any evidence from the parties when it was the initial stage of the suit. The respondents claimed ownership and sought possession of the property through mutation Entry No. 427. On the other hand, the petitioners challenged the authenticity and genuineness of the said mutation entries of the respondents. The matter has been adjud icated by the civil court, being court of preliminary jurisdiction in terms of section 9, C.P.C. The civil court may resolve the controversy by adopting any means, and there is no restriction imposed upon the exercise of powers under Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P.C. to get the disputed land demarcated as to whether the same falls within the specific Khasra number with specific boundary limits and dimension.
6. Civil Courts have all kind of powers to resolve the issue of parties concerning the demarcation. In order to understand the controversy , it is necessar y to analyze powers of the Court in terms of section 75, C.P.C., which has been reproduced below: "75. Power of Court to issue commission. Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed the Court may issue a commission-.
(a) to examine any person ;
(b) to make a local investigation;
(c) to examine or adjust accounts; or
(d) to make a partition. "
And Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P .C. is also reproduced below: "9. Commission to make local investigation.---In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property , or the amount or any mesne profits or damage or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court:-- Provided that, where the [Provincial Government] has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.
7. In view of the above provisions of law, the emphasis has been given on the terms "Local investigation" required for the purposes of lucidity in matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission to such persons as it thinks fit for the purposes of investigation. Above referred terminology indicates certain special powers available to the Civil Court through which the Court can collect information, inquire into the matter , record evidence, in order to formulate its opinion to get the issue resolved in its true perspective as without appointment of Local Commission the Court could not have a clear view and the just decision cannot be achieved especially when the matter is related to a local dispute regarding encroachment which otherwise requires the probe on site and as such there is no direct evidence regarding the identification and nature of the site. The very purpose of Local Commission in terms of section 75 read with Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P.C. can only be the mandate as the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit of civil nature in terms of section 9, C.P .C.
8. It is correct that the parties are bound to produce evidence in respect to their cases, and other options are rarely exercised, which includes the appointment of Commission. Normally the Commission is appointed to bring to the surface some facts which the parties have failed to disclose in the Court. Moreover , the report of Commission is not exclusive and is always subject to the objection of the parties, and the Court is not bound to straightaway accept or reject the same. They have ample opportunities to bring their view-points on the record before the Court regarding their objections, if any. The Court would not straightaway accept the said report but would evaluate the objection of the parties. Even if the report is accepted, it would not amount to evidence, but would only help the Court in reaching to a correct conclusion.
9. Under section 75 and Order XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C. if the trial Court feels difficulty in deciding a case and reaches the conclusion that the judgment cannot be delivered without spot inspection, then the Court has jurisdiction to make spot inspection, but in the instant case neither issues were framed nor the parties have led any evidence. At the very initial stage, the authenticity and genuineness of the mutation entries of the respondents can only be determined and established before the civil court and which requires full-fledged inquiry and scrutiny , that too after providing the full opportunity of hearing to both the parties before the trial court and at this stage the genuineness and authenticity cannot be determined through the appointment of the local commissioner .
10. After recording some evidence, particularly in respect of mutation entries, if the trial court feels difficulty in deciding the case and reaching the conclusion that the judgment cannot be delivered without spot inspection, then the court has the jurisdiction of making a site inspection, and there is no bar on filing a second application under Order XXVI, Rule 1, C.P .C. for the appointment of a local commissioner .
In view of the above, since, in our humble opinion, no illegality or jurisdictional defect has been committed by the revisional court, therefore, the petition is accordingly dismissed.