1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2531/2008 (Bhagwan Tikaram Selokar VERSUS Dnyaneshwar Maroti Bhope) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri S.R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.N. Mohta, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhandara on 12.02.2008 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of the commissioner. I have perused the prayer made in the plaint, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the reply filed thereto and the impugned order dated 12.02.2008. 2 The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over 0.07 R of land from Survey No.164 in measurement map No.456/2006. The plaintiff has not filed a suit against the defendant for possession on the ground that the defendant is an encroacher. The trial Court rightly held that the measurement map was already filed by the plaintiff on record and the plaintiff had based his claim on the basis of measurement map No.456/2006. According to the trial Court, there was no necessity for appointment of a commissioner under the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court rightly held that the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of a commissioner for elucidating the matter in dispute was not tenable. The judgment reported in 2005(4) 3 Mh.L.J. 471 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE