1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8675 OF 2010 1. Arjun s/o. Dadarao Gurav, Age 60 yrs., Occu. Agril, 2. Vishnu s/o. Dadarao Gurav, Age 48 yrs., Occu. Agril., 3. Bhivaji s/o. Dadarao Gurav, Age 42 yrs., Occu. Agril., 4. Shivabai w/o. Arjun Gurav, Age 48 yrs., Occu. Household, 5. Shardabai w/o. Vishnu Gurav, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Household, 6. Nirmalabai w/o. Bhivaji Gurav, Age 32 yrs., Occu. Household, All R/o. Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. ....Petitioners. Versus Nagnath s/o. Vishwanath Sontakke, Age 49 yrs., Occu. Agirl., R/o. Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. ....Respondent. Mr. Madhav Ghode h/f. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 16th December, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.7.2010 by which order the application of the petitioner /original defendant for appointment of Court Commissioner and submitting a report in respect of the suit site, came to be rejected. 3. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that the evidence in the matter is closed and the suit is kept for judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court Kashinath s/o. Ramkrishna Chopade Vs. Purushottam Tulshiram Tekade and Ors., reported in 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 471, wherein the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter to the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to appoint a Court Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay Namdeo Khandare Vs. Sahebrao Kachru Khandare and Ors., reported in 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 959, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that the appointment of Court Commissioner to submit the report regarding actual possession of the suit field, would tantamount to appointing the Court Commissioner for collecting evidence regarding 3 possession. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The stage at which the application for appointment of Court Commissioner is made would assume significance. Since the evidence is already over, it appears that the application has been filed merely to fill up any lacunae in the evidence. The case of Kashinath (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case considering the fact that only judgment is awaited in the matter. In the circumstances, I do not find that the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the application of the petitioner can be said to be perverse. 5. The impugned order does not warrant interference. The Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 6. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the Appeal Court, in the event of any Appeal being filed against final orders in the suit, for passing appropriate orders if it is satisfied that appointment of Court Commissioner is necessary. [ A. A. SAYED, J. ] ssc/wp8675.10