1 wp10108-101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10108/2010 Gayabai W/o Sopanrao Damale Age 50 years, Occ-Agril R/o Dhondhalgaon, Tq. Vaijapur Dist.Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER [ORIG.DEFT.NO.4] VERSUS 1] Ashwini W/o Machindra Damale Age 32 years, Occ-Agril 2] Sunita W/o Goraknath Damale Age 37 years, Occ-Agril 3] Nivrutti S/o Suryabhan Khillre Age 59 yrs, Occ-Agril. 4] Phulchand S/o Vithoba Choudhary age 49 yrs, Occ-Agril. 5] Ashok S/o Keshvrao Wagh Age 43 yrs, Occ-Agril. 6] Shaikh Rahim S/o Shaikh Gafoor Age 65 yrs, Occ-Agril. 7] Shaikh Salim S/o Shaikh Rahim Age 45 yrs, Occ-Agril 8] Shaikh Latif S/o Shaikh Rahim Age 49 yrs. Occ-Agril. 2 wp10108-102 All R/o Dhondhalgaon, Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS [RESP.NO. 1 TO 5 ARE ORIG. PLTFFS. AND RESP.NO. 6 TO 8 ARE ORIG.DEFT. NO. 1 to 3} ...... Shri P.V.Mandlik,Senior Counsel instructed by Shri A.S.Gandhi,Adv.for Petitioner. Shri Uday Dalvi h/f Shri M.G.Mustafa,Adv.for Respondents 1 to 5. Respondents 6 to 8 served. .... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE : 06/12/2010. ORAL ORDER : 1] The order dated 13/3/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaijapur, is a subject matter of challenge in this Petition. By that order, the application of the petitioner/orig. defendant no.4 (who was newly added party to the suit), for appointment of Court Commissioner came to be rejected. 2] On a prior occasion also in the suit, a Court Commissioner was appointed and the report of the Court Commissioner dated 20/4/2005 is already on record. It is an admitted position that no objections have been filed by the petitioner to the said report and straightway, another application is moved for appointment of Court Commissioner, which would be a second application for appointment of Court Commissioner in the same suit. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 3 wp10108-103 there appears to be some collusion between the original plaintiff and original defendants no.1 to 3 and that the the petitioner/orig.deft. no.4 has recently come on record and therefore, the said application for appointment of Court Commissioner for the second time was necessitated. 4] I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner-defendant no.4 would first file objections, if any,to the said report dated 20/4/2005 and in the event, the trial Court is satisfied that the objections carry substance and merit consideration, the trial Court may only then entertain a fresh application, which would then be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. No fault can be found in the impugned order so as to warrant interference. 5] With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED,J.) umg/wp10108-10