[2026:RJ-JP:6393] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2791/2026 Smt. Mukeshi, Wife Of Vijay Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Khedichandla, Tehsil Srimahaverji, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Satyanarayan, Son Of Manohari, Aged About 45 Years, R/ o Khedichandla, Tehsil Srimahaveerji, District Karauli. 2. Jasram, Son Of Manohari, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Khedichandla, Tehsil Srimahaveerji, District Karauli. 3. Jagdish, Son Of Manohari, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khedichandla, Tehsil Srimahaveerji, District Karauli. 4. Bharat Lal, Son Of Manohari, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Khedichandla, Tehsil Srimahaveerji, District Karauli. 5. Kanchniya, Wife Of Manohari, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Khedichandla, Tehsil Srimahaveerji, District Karauli. 6. Sub-Registrar, Office-Sub Registrar Hindaun, District Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara Mr. Vivek Kumar Meena Ms. Rashmi Meena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 11/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing order dated 15.01.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge, District Karauli, whereby the application filed by respondents under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, for appointment of Commissioner to bring on record the fact that who is in possession of the disputed property, has been rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:6393] (2 of 2) [CW-2791/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the property vide register sale-deed dated 25.07.2005. He further submits that the suit for cancellation of sale-deed has been filed in the year 2025. However, he has been in possession of the property since the execution of sale-deed whereas the plaintiff are denying the possession of the defendant under the sale-deed. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint the Commissioner for bringing the fact on record that who is in the actual possession of the disputed property. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. It is a settled principle of law that the possession has to be established and proved by the parties by their evidence and for that purpose Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence in favour of any of the parties. Therefore, this Court finds that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out who is in possession and the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 5. This Court finds no error so as to call for any interference in the impugned order in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. All pending applications stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /16