1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5385 OF 2008. Chandrabhan S/o Bapurao Aute, Age 65 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Apegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Jagannath S/o Bapurao Aute, Age 60 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Apegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Shivaji S/o Suryabhan Aute, Age 35 years, Occ.Agri & Service, R/o Apegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents. (W.P. dismissed as against Respondent No.1 vide Court's order dated 24.9.2009.) ... Mr.N.T.Tribhuwan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.02.2010. 2 PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit for perpetual injunction regarding agricultural land which he claims to be the owner of. Mr.Tribhuwan, submits that interim injunction is also issued in that suit. According to the petitioner, the Respondents filed another suit for claiming relief of injunction in respect of their land with an ulterior motive to give go by to the effect of the injunction suit filed by him. It appears that real dispute is regarding the area of encroachment and there are allegations and counter allegations by the parties. On application filed by the Respondents,the trial Court directed measurement of lands of both the parties together by appointing TILR as Court Commissioner. The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that measurement of both the lands is sought by the Respondent in order to collect evidence. It is contended that the purpose of appointment of the Court Commissioner is to collect new material 3 in support of the suit filed by the Respondents and to cause complications in the civil litigation initiated by the petitioner. 3. It is difficult to comprehend how the appointment of Court Commissioner, only for the purpose of comprehensive measurement of both the lands, can be regarded as an attempt to collect new material or to create some evidence. Indeed, comprehensive evidence of both the lands is likely to assist the trial Court in reaching proper conclusion so as to adjudicate whether there is any encroachment made by either of the parties. The challenge to the impugned order seems to be untenable. There appears no perversity or arbitrariness committed by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any substance in the present petition and as such it is dismissed. No costs. The trial Court, however, shall endeavour to consider whether both the suits can be amalgamated for common decision in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation in 4 view of "M/s P.T.Anklesaria and Co. Vs. Union of India" 1974 Mh.L.J.334. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp538508