there is lack of jurisdiction, erreneous assumption of jurisdiction of excess of jurisdiction or where there is gross dereliction of duty, flagrant violation of law, error of law apparent on the face of the record or where there is violation of principles of natural justice and finding is based on no material or whatever which is by very nature arbitrary or capricious. The power conferred on the court to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection is for better appreciation of the evidence already on record. The trial court had the jurisdiction to decide under what circumstances it can appoint a Commissioner. The Commissioner so appointed is not performing a judicial act and it is a "ministerial Act". Nothing is left to discretion and there is no occasion to use judgment or adjudicate the issue involved but only noting the details and reporting the actual state of affairs. Such report does not automatically form part of evidence in the proceeding and the court has power to confirm, vary or set aside the report or issue a new commission. Hence there is neither abdication nor delegation of the powers of functions of the Court to decide the issue. Only an examination of the Commissioner, the report forms part of the record and evidence. The opposite party has opportunity to crossexamine the Commissioner. Of course, failure to do so to elicit such information as it required, cannot at later stage object to the report being accepted on the ground Commissioner not examined or cross examined. The contention of the learned counsel that the impugned order is per se illegal, unsustainable and amounts to delegating the functions of the Court to decide the issue are
