1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2801 OF 2010 (Narayanprasad S. Agrawal & Anr. vs. Radheshyam M. Agrawal & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 29, 2010. Heard Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioners – original plaintiffs and Shri Radheshyam M. Agrawal, respondent No. 1 in person. Respondent No. 2 is absent, though served. Respondent No. 2 is the son of Respondent No.1. Shri Mehadia, learned counsel states that the Commissioner inspected the suit site and filed his report on 04.02.2010 and it was objected to by the petitioner – plaintiff on 06.02.2010 and 02.03.2010. The report was not objected to by Respondent No.1. In the light of objections filed on record, the petitioner - plaintiff wanted to cross examine the Commissioner. He had invited attention to written submissions filed by Respondent No. 1 before this Court to show that Respondent No. 1 has stated that he should be permitted to cross examine the Commissioner, if the petitioner is permitted to cross examine him. In reply, Shri Radheshyam Agrawal states that the Commissioner was appointed on application of the petitioner – plaintiff and hence the petitioner – 2 plaintiff has to examine the Commissioner first if at all he is willing. He further states that he has not taken any objection to the report of the Commissioner as yet and would like to cross examine the Commissioner in the light of answers given by him in petitioner's examination. It is apparent that the Commissioner was appointed on petitioner – plaintiff application. The report submitted by him is objected to by the petitioner – plaintiff, therefore, he is entitled to show before the trial Court substance in his objections and for that purpose he needs to be given opportunity to examine the Commissioner in the light of objections raised by him. Hence, that opportunity is extended to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is also entitled to examine the Commissioner further in the light of answers given by him in the petitioner's examination. The said opportunity is, therefore, extended to Respondent No.1. The impugned order dated 18.03.2010 passed below Exh. 301 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The petitioner – plaintiff first to put questions to the Commissioner in the light of objections raised by him and thereafter if necessary, Respondent No. 1 shall take his further examination or cross examination. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.