1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.679 OF 2010 Kuldeep Nandkumar Jadhav & Anr. .. Petitioners versus The Collector, Satara & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodke for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for respondent No.1. Mr.P.S.Gole for the State-respondent No.6. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th May 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that notice has been served to all the respondents in terms of order dated 3rd February 2010. The notice was issued for final disposal. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. In the suit filed by the petitioners an advocate was appointed as Court Commissioner in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An application was made by the petitioners at Exhibit 75 seeking permission to examine the Commissioner on oath. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as the report of the Court Commissioner becomes evidence, the petitioners are 2 entitled to examine the Court Commissioner on the contents of the report. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the petition by submitting that the report of the Court Commissioner does not affect the merits of the suit considering the nature of reliefs sought in the suit. He submitted that report of the Court Commissioner is irrelevant and therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Under sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) the report of the Court Commissioner and evidence given by him becomes evidence in the suit and it forms a part of the record of the suit. Under the same rule, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit can examine the Court Commissioner in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report. The examination of the Commissioner is confined to the aspects set out in sub-rule 2 of Rule 10. Apart from the right given to the parties to examine the Commissioner, under sub-rule 3 of Rule 10 of Order XXVI of the said Code the Court is given power to order fresh enquiry. 4. In view of the sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order XXVI of the said Code, the report of the Commissioner will be read in evidence. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of an opportunity to examine the court commissioner in the Court in terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 10. What is the relevance of the report of the Court Commissioner and his deposition are 3 questions to be considered by the Court at the time of final hearing of the suit. There is no reason to reject the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. Hence, petition is disposed of by passing following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (b) The application at Exhibit 75 is allowed. It is, however, made clear that the examination of the court commissioner will be restricted to the matters set out in the sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (c) The writ petition is allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)