vacant sites, there may be a scramble for possession, more particularly, when already certain portions of the plaint plan were already occupied and houses were constructed and the said occupied portions shown in the plaint plan are excluded from the suit claim while instituting the suit. In suits of this nature, if commissioner is appointed, in the well considered view of this Court, there is every possibility that a powerful party may try to occupy temporarily the vacant site/s, if any, to give an impression at the time of the visit of the commissioner that the disputed site/s is/are not vacant; and, such party may even try to change the nature of the subject property keeping in view the impending visit of the commissioner, who may be appointed by the Court. Therefore, appointing a commissioner in a suit of this nature would lead to mess ups and scrambles and law and order problems, which it is always better to avoid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appointing a Commissioner for a local investigation is not requisite and the report of the Commissioner even if called for will not be useful for elucidating the matter in dispute. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the well considered view that the present case on hand is not a fit case to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purpose desired by the 2nd defendant – Municipality and that as rightly contended by the plaintiffs the request is misconceived and is obviously made with an ulterior design and mal fide intention.
