[2026:RJ-JP:10916] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4706/2026 1. Sharwan Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Jawahar Singh Rathore, R/o Village Rajnota, Dhani Bhimji Ki, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur At Present R/o Plot No.22, Chitrakoot Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) Died During Suit 1/1. Smt. Kiran Tanwar, W/o Late Sharwan Singh Rathore (Since Deceased) 1/2. Rajendra Singh, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Late Sharwan Singh Rathore 1/3. Surendra Singh S/o Late Sharwan Singh Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, All Are R/o Plot No.22, Chitrakoot Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Petitioners/plaintiff Versus 1. Shankar Vaishnav S/o Shri Aturam Vaishnav, R/o Plot No.212, Laxmi Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur 2. Kaluram S/o Shri Ladduram Sahum, R/o Raithal House, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur 3. Ummed Singh S/o Shri Harnath Singh, R/o Village Amarsinghpura, Post Pilod, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Sub-Registrar-Ii, Jaipur, Collectorate Premises, Banipark, Jaipur ----Respondents/defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Takhat Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 16/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.10.2025, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan II, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC has been rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:10916] (2 of 2) [CW-4706/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wanted to bring on record the situation and position of the plaintiff-petitioner being in possession on the disputed property and therefore, it was necessary to appoint a Commissioner and take his report. 3. Heard. 4. This Court finds that the appointment of Commissioner cannot be for the purpose of collection of evidence. Moreover, the application was not filed at the time the order of temporary injunction application was passed rather it has been filed at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff was going on. 5. This Court thus finds that the filing of an application by a party to appoint Commissioner to merely collect evidence in his favour is contrary to the settled principle of law which states that no party can be permitted to collect evidence of possession. It is also a settled position of law that the parties have to adduce there own evidence to prove the possession and for that purpose Commissioner cannot be appointed. 6. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 04.10.2025. No interference is called for by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 7. All pending application(s) also stand dismissed. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Jubin/17