1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5471 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.A.D.Shinde, counsel for petitioner. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 6/09/2010 1] An application tendered by the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner for local inspection under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code has been turned down by the trial Court for the reason that already there was a court commissioner appointed, who has tendered report to the Court and the appointment of commissioner was at the request of the plaintiff-petitioner on earlier occasion. A grievance is made by petitioner that the order appointing Court commissioner was issued by the Court on 17/2/07 and he conducted local inspection in the year 2007 itself, however, he has submitted his report to the Court after one and half year from 2 completion of measurement of the property. It is contended that the report tendered by the Court commissioner should be in conformity with the circumstances prevailing on the spot and the report which has been tendered after one and half year, cannot be relied upon. The petitioner has requested to the Court for appointment of second commissioner to conduct local inspection. Application tendered by petitioner has been turned down by the trial Court in view of order date 21/1/2010. 3] I have perused application as well as impugned order passed by the trial Court. It is not controverted that the initial order of appointment of commissioner was passed in pursuance to the request made by the petitioner-plaintiff. Merely because report is tendered to the Court after one and half year in itself, would not be a ground for appointing second commissioner for the purpose of local inspection. Option is available with the petitioner-plaintiff to examine or cross examine the Court commissioner in reference to the report tendered. After leading his 3 evidence, if the plaintiff-petitioner makes out a case for appointment of commissioner for local inspection once again, he may tender an appropriate application, giving reasons in support thereof. The trial Court will consider such application at an appropriate stage and Court would obviously pass appropriate order in accordance with law. So far as the instant petition is concerned, no interference is called for in the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court. Petition therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE,J.) umg/wp-5471-10