(1.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 04.02.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.275-A/2012 by First Civil Judge Class-2 Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha, whereby an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the defendants for appointment of a Commissioner to carry out the spot inspection has been rejected.
(2.) The reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejection of the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the same appears to be have been filed for collection of evidence which can not be permitted in view of certain citations mentioned in the order impugned.
(3.) The discretion given to the Court under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously. The trial Court by assigning reason as mentioned above for rejecting the application for appointment of Commissioner does not appear to have transgressed any of its jurisdictional limit. Merely because another view is possible in the attending facts and circumstances is not a good ground for successfully invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, no scope for interference is made out in the limited supervisory jurisdiction by the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.