1 wp 7616.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7616 OF 2011 Vijaykumar Dagdulal Chhajed .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri V. B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit for declaration and injunction. After the evidence was led by both the parties and the plaintiff also advanced his final arguments, the defendant filed an application for examining the Court Commissioner. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri V. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order 18 Rule 17-A has been deleted by the 2 wp 7616.11 amendment carried out in 2002. When Order 18 Rule 17-A itself is deleted. The Court does not have power and authority to call for the evidence after the parties have closed their evidence. Order 18 Rule 17 only permits the Court to recall the witness which is previously been examined. The Court Commissioner was not previously examined. As such, there is no provision under which the Court could have passed the order for examining the Court Commissioner. The learned counsel further contends that the order impugned is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. No due diligence is also shown by the defendants. No reasons are given for not examining the Court Commissioner earlier. 3. No doubt, the application is filed by the defendants to examine the Court Commissioner after the evidence is closed by both the parties and plaintiff has advanced arguments. 4. If the arguments of learned counsel Shri Patil is accepted that there is no provision under which the defendants could have filed application after the evidence is closed, then provisions of Sec. 151 would squarely apply. Moreover, the Court has ample powers to ask for examination of any person and satisfy itself. 3 wp 7616.11 The Trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the examination of the Court Commissioner would assist in clarifying the position on the issues as the suit relates in respect of alleged encroachment. The provisions of Sec. 164 and 165 of the Evidence Act give ample power to the Court to pass such orders in order to obtain proper proof of relevant facts. 5. The Court has given proper reasons while allowing the application. Moreover, the Court Commissioner was a T. I. L. R. who is an expert and whose evidence would be assistance to the Court to come to a just conclusion. 6. In the result the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11