( 1 ) wp5370.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5370 OF 2010 Manikrao s/o. Bapurao Jatal & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Panditrao s/o. Bapurao Jatal .. Respondent Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 10.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. The petitioners challenge the order rendered by the Trial Court for appointment of the Court Commissioner. It is argued that the injunction application filed by the respondent in the suit (R.C.S. No. 130 of 2009) came to be rejected and thereafter now the attempt is being made to collect evidence in order to demonstrate that the Western side boundary (Shiv) which is mentioned in the sale deed of the respondent does not exist and cannot be used as a way for access. It is contended that by the impugned order ( 2 ) wp5370.10 the appointment of the Court Commissioner is directed against the settled legal norms and the intention of the respondent is to collect evidence by way of such appointment. I do not agree. The real question to be decided by the Trial Court is whether there is access way available to the respondent on the Southern side of his land or that he can approach his land from Western side which is shown as Gokulwadi (Mandva Shiv) boundary. The local inspection of the spot will clarify the fact situation as it is available and the Court Commissioner will not be empowered to record any statement of the adjoining owner or any other witness at the spot. The Court Commissioner will simply visit the spot in dispute and will locate the existence of access way available to the parties without making reference about the user thereof. With this observation, the petition is disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp5370.10