According to Order 26 Rule 9, a CPC should only be appointed where the parties' evidence is insufficient to settle the dispute. High Court of J&K

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that the appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is permissible only when the evidence presented by the parties is insufficient to resolve the dispute.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal emphasized that such appointments should not be made prematurely, particularly before the evidence stage, as was the case in a suit involving disputed land in Sunjwan, Jammu.

The trial court's decision to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation was set aside, with the High Court noting that factual ambiguities requiring investigation arise only after issues are framed and evidence is evaluated.

The judgment also highlighted distinctions between Commissioners appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC (for investigation) and Order 39 Rule 7 CPC (for inspection).

This decision reinforces procedural guidelines for trial courts in handling civil disputes where evidence sufficiency is critical.