2025:UHC:1422 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 89 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anshu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 23.08.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar in Civil Suit No. 171 of 2011. By the said order, his application seeking appointment of commission was rejected. Petitioner challenged the said order in a revision. His revision petition was dismissed by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Haridwar, vide judgment dated 26.09.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner’s application for appointment of commission deserved to be allowed. 4. I have gone through the order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court. Both the Courts below have given valid reasons for not granting 2025:UHC:1422 prayer for appointment of commission, made by the petitioner. 5. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Courts below. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC provides for appointment of commission, which reads as under:- “9. Commissions to make local investigations.—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 of any mesne profits or damages 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 State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 6. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC enables the Court to issue commission for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or for ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits. 7. Law is settled that Commission cannot be issued for the purpose of collecting evidence, as the burden is upon the parties to prove their case, by leading evidence. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in paragraph no. 9 of its judgment rendered in the case of Syed Mushtaque Ahmed v. Syed Ashique Ali khan, reported in [2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 334 has held that “ it is well settled by catena 2025:UHC:1422 of judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court that the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence” 8. Petitioner contends that part of the land in dispute was acquired by NHAI for construction of National Highway, therefore, that aspect needs to be elucidated by issuing a commission. 9. This Court do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission. Since, petitioner has taken a stand that out of the land in dispute, a portion has been acquired for construction of National Highway; therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove the said fact, by leading evidence. Thus, the request made by the petitioner for issuing Commission was rightly turned down by the Trial Court. The judgment rendered by Revisional Court, thus, does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. [ (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.02.2025 Navin