Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1683 of 2025 Arabindo Jena ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Swayamjit Rout -versus- Hinjilicut Municipality, Ganjam & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 11.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hinjilicut in C.S. No.20 of 2018, thereby rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner, as plaintiff, has filed a suit for easementary rights. During the pendency of the suit, before the evidence could begin, an application was filed from the side of the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 to depute the Amin Commissioner. However, such application has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.02.2025 at Annexure-4. Page 2 of 2. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 5. Perused the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 at Annexure-4, it appears that the learned trial court, after taking into consideration the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Plaintiff and referring to various citations/judgment, has come to a conclusion that a Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to help the plaintiff to collect the evidence in support of his claim. The learned trial court has also observed that, if it is found after taking evidence at there is some ambiguity regarding the evidence of the parties, then the Court may take the assistance of the Court Commissioner for the purpose of clarification of such ambiguity. Looking into the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that there is no necessity to send a Court Commissioner at that stage. 6. On a careful analysis of the impugned order dated 10.02.2025, this Court is of the view that the same does not call for any interference at this stage. Accordingly, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order. However, while disposing of the present writ application, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move a fresh application under Order 26 Rule 9 after closure of the evidence from both sides. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the same on its own merit and pass necessary consequential orders thereon. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CMP application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi