Appointing Court Commissioner In Possession Suit To Identify Disputed Land Before Trial Begins Is Evidence Collection: Telangana High Court

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 6 November 2026

Case: Not specified in source
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: Justice P. Sree Sudha
Citation: Not specified in source
Statutes: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.Order XXVI Rule 9
Source: LiveLaw

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Telangana High Court, in a decision by Justice P. Sree Sudha, held that appointing a Court Commissioner in a possession suit to identify disputed land before trial commences amounts to evidence collection. This is impermissible under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it allows for local investigation only to elucidate matters already in evidence.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A Court Commissioner cannot be appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to collect evidence or identify disputed property before the commencement of the trial, as the purpose of a local investigation is to elucidate existing evidence, not to create new evidence.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should object to applications for Court Commissioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC if the intent is to collect initial evidence or identify property before trial. Litigants seeking local investigation must ensure it is for elucidating matters already on record, not for pre-trial evidence gathering.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is for elucidating existing evidence, not for collecting new evidence.
2A Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to identify disputed property before trial begins.
3The purpose of local investigation is to clarify ambiguities in evidence already presented.

The Legal Issue The Telangana High Court addressed whether a Court Commissioner could be appointed in a suit for possession to identify the disputed land before the trial had commenced. The petitioner sought the appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain the boundaries and extent of the property, arguing it was necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. The respondent contended that such an appointment would amount to collecting evidence, which is not permissible under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Court's Reasoning Justice P. Sree Sudha of the Telangana High Court observed that the primary purpose of appointing a Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is to conduct a local investigation to elucidate any matter in dispute. The Court clarified that this provision is not intended for the collection of evidence or for identifying the disputed property before the trial begins. The Court reasoned that allowing such an appointment would essentially permit a party to gather evidence prematurely, which is contrary to the scheme of the CPC. The Court emphasized that a local investigation is meant to clarify ambiguities or provide clarity on facts that are already part of the evidence, not to create new evidence or establish facts that are yet to be proven through trial.

What Follows The Telangana High Court set aside the order of the trial court that had appointed a Court Commissioner. The application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner was dismissed, with the Court holding that such an appointment before the commencement of the trial for identifying disputed land constitutes evidence collection, which is impermissible under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.