1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5900 OF 2009 Shaikh Ibrahim Abdul Aziz ...Petitioner vs. Pune Municipal Corporation ...Respondent Mr.Parag Dube for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2009 P.C. 1 The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for challenging the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation of issuing a notice of demolition under section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. Pending the appeal, an application was moved by the petitioner under Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for the appointment of the court commissioner for local inspection of the structure. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no merit in the petition. Though the reasons recorded by the learned District Judge may not be happily worded, no case was 2 made out for appointment of the court commissioner. The entire burden was on the petitioner to prove that the structure was authorised. Therefore, there is no error committed by the District Court when the application made by the petitioner for appointment of the court commissioner during the pendency of the appeal has been rejected. No case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE