The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect disputed property during the pendency of an injunction application does not amount to helping a party collect evidence. The Court held that such an inspection is meant to give the trial court an objective understanding of the property's existing physical condition before deciding an interim relief application.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a property dispute between Roshan Lal and Veni Ram over an abadi plot situated at Village Sisarma in Udaipur district. Roshan Lal claimed possession based on a 1975 patta allegedly issued in favour of his late father and sought a permanent injunction, alleging encroachment by the respondent.
The trial court had granted interim protection to the petitioner. Subsequently, Veni Ram sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to inspect the site, record its physical features, measurements and boundaries. The trial court allowed the request, leading Roshan Lal to challenge the order before the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice Farjand Ali observed that the purpose of appointing a Commissioner is not necessarily to collect evidence for either side but to assist the court in understanding the factual situation at the site.
The bench observed,
"The purpose of appointing a Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC is not invariably to collect evidence on behalf of either party."
It further noted that a Commissioner's report merely helps the court appreciate the factual matrix and does not create or take away any legal rights of the parties.
The Court found that the dispute involved questions regarding the property's existing physical condition, measurements and boundaries. Since the temporary injunction application was still pending, obtaining an objective status report through local inspection was considered a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Decision
Finding no jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the trial court's order, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court upheld the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner and also disposed of the pending stay application and other connected applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Roshan Lal v. Veni Ram & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13759/2026
Judge: Justice Farjand Ali
Decision Date: 09 July 2026
