Local investigation commissioner orders need recorded reasons and judicial satisfaction before appointment under civil procedure rules.

Appointment of a commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised judicially and supported by recorded reasons showing that local investigation is requisite or proper to elucidate the dispute. A commissioner's report is only evidence under Order 26 Rule 10 and cannot be used simply to help a party collect material otherwise available. Because the impugned order contained no reasons and no judicial satisfaction on necessity, the appointment was held unsustainable and liable to be set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the application and objection.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order appointing a commissioner for local investigation under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be sustained when it recorded no reasons and showed no judicial satisfaction that local investigation was requisite or proper for elucidating the matter in dispute.

Analysis: Appointment of a commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 is discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised judicially and supported by reasons. A commissioner's report is only a piece of evidence under Order 26, Rule 10, and the power is not to be used freely to collect evidence for a party when the party can otherwise adduce it. Local investigation is justified only when it is requisite or proper for elucidating a disputed matter or for appreciating evidence already on record, and the Court must record satisfaction on that basis. The impugned order disclosed no such reasoning or satisfaction.

Conclusion: The order appointing the commissioner was unsustainable and liable to be set aside; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the application and objection.

---