1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1078 OF 2010 Chakor L. Doshi .. Petitioner versus Harshad Punjalal Dave & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.1083 OF 2010 Chakor L. Doshi .. Petitioner versus Harshad Punjalal Dave & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.1084 OF 2010 Chakor L. Doshi .. Petitioner versus Harshad Punjalal Dave & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2010 Chakor L. Doshi .. Petitioner versus Jaysing Ambaprasad Dave & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rafiq Dada, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Cyrus Bharucha for the petitioner in W.P.NO.1078 of 2010. Mr.R.M.Jayakar i/by Jayakars for the petitioner in W.P.NOs.1083/2010,1084/2010 and 1085/2010. Mr.Girish Godbole and Mr.Snehal Shah i/by Purnand & Co for respondent Nos.6 and 7 in all the petitions. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondents. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by a common order as facts of the petitions are identical. 2 The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alibag. An application was made for appointment of a Court Commissioner for examining the petitioner-plaintiff on commission at Mumbai in his office premises. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The suits filed by the petitioner are being heard together. The only ground set out in the application for appointment of Court Commissioner reads thus: “. Today the matter has been fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and now the common evidence affidavit for examination in chief of the plaintiff is to be filed, as per the order of this Hon’ble Court. However, plaintiff being the businessman, is having pre-occupation business commitments and duties and he has to travel for business purposes. So also it will be difficult to attend the Court at Alibag personally considering the business commitments and therefore, it is necessary to record his evidence, by appointing the court commissioner as per Order 18, Rule 14(3 to 5) and Rule 19, in his office premises at Mumbai.” 3. On plain reading of the said ground, the trial Court was justified in not appointing the Commissioner for recording the evidence of the petitioner. The only reason given by the petitioner in his application is that being a businessman he is unable to attend the Court at Alibag. The petitioner has gone to the extent of making a prayer that his evidence should be recorded in his own office premises in Mumbai. Obviously, on these grounds the trial Court could not have appointed the Court Commissioner. If power to appoint Court Commissioner is exercised on such grounds, it will send wrong signals to the other litigants. The power to appoint Court Commissioner cannot be exercised on such fanciful ground pleaded by the petitioner. Therefore the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. There is no merit in the petitions. Petitions are rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)