“5. When the controversy is as to identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or object, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared. The party against whom the report may have gone may choose to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Hence, ordinarily in such type of cases local investigation should not be deferred to a stage after the closure of evidence. I do not mean thereby that in no circumstances can local investigation be sought after the evidence is closed. But ordinarily it should be done before the parties adduced evidence. Hence, I do not accept the contention of Mr. B. Patnaik that inasmuch as the party has a right to and can adduce evidence of a survey knowing person engaged by him privately with reference to identification of location, it is open to the Court to decline to appoint a commissioner for local investigation under Order 26, Rule 9. In this case the controversy can be resolved by locating the wall upon measurement, that is to say, whether it stood on plot No. 306 or plot No. 307. So, the local investigation is essential. The learned Munsif having failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, I interfere and vacate the impugned order. He is directed to appoint a survey knowing, commissioner.”
