HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 135/2025 CM No. 3014/2025 Tara Chand and another …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R. P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate. vs Yash Paul Sharma .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 14.07.2026 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Munsiff, Jammu (for short the ‘Trial Court’), whereby the application preferred by the petitioners herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with 151 CPC for appointment of Commission for spot inspection of subject matter of suit property has been rejected. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that the parties have not led evidence as yet though the issues have been framed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the issues are yet to be framed and evidence is yet to be led by both the parties. Serial No. 13 2 CM(M) No. 135/2025 5. This issue is no more res integra that provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC can be invoked by the court only for the purpose of elucidating the matter in controversy. Once there is no evidence before the court, the court cannot invoke the provisions under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. This Court has already considered identical issue in case titled as Saraj Din vs. Liyaqat Ali decided on 13.03.2025. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, along with the connected application, with liberty to the petitioners to move the said application at the relevant point of time, if necessity arises. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 14.07.2026 Sahil Padha Sahil Padha 2026.07.15 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document