1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7420 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. G.V.Wani, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent no. 1 to 5. ........................... [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 20/11/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 10/9/2009 vide which the learned 7 th Civil Judge (J.D.) , Jalgaon has allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of Court Commissioner. 2. A Suit for eviction has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner on two grounds, firstly, bonafide need and secondly on the ground of altercation of the premises 2 without obtaining permission of the landlord. 3. In so far as second ground is concerned, an application came to be filed below Exh. 34 for appointment of court commissioner. The same is allowed. Hence, present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Wani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in allowing the application in as much as the Court commissioner would not be in a position to give report as to whether any permanent structural changes has been made in as much as he is not in a position to point out as to what was the original structure. He, therefore, submits that the order of appointment of court commissioner is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Bajaj, the learned counsel on behalf of respondent/landlord on the contrary submits that the learned trial court in the facts of the case found it appropriate to appoint court commissioner. He submits that unless it is found that the jurisdiction which has been exercised by 3 the learned trial court, has been exercised in perversity, no interference would be warranted. 6. I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned 7 th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalgaon on two grounds – (i) that the petitioner has already acquiesced to the order and have agreed the name of the court commissioner to be appointed in pursuance to the order impugned herein and (ii) in the facts of the present case, I find that an expert’s report would be necessary to find out as to whether the respondent/plaintiff has carried out permanent structural changes in the suit premises. However, at the same time, I find that the Advocate who is appointed as Court Commissioner would not be in a position to give the report regarding the permanent changes in the structure. 7. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the order passed by the learned trial court of appointing court commissioner, it is directed that the court commissioner shall be either the registered Engineer or the chartered Architect. The parties shall submit the name to the learned trial court within 4 the period of two weeks from today and if the name of the registered Engineer or chartered Architect is suggested, the learned trial court would appoint one of such registered Engineer or chartered Architect as court commissioner. The Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7420.09