1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 2008. Gopalrao S/o Yeshwantrao Dabadgaonkar ... Petitioner. Versus Pradeep S/o Raghunath Bedre and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the Respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 10.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Latur, on his application (Exh.122) in suit bearing (RCS No.547/1990). 2 2. Heard learned counsel. 3. The application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner vide Exh.81 was allowed by the trial Court on 14.8.2006. He was directed to deposit the charges of the Commissioner i.e. TILR in the concerned office. He did not deposit the Commissioner's fees in the Court. On 18.10.2007, the advocate of the petitioner was found absent and, therefore, earlier order was recalled by the Court. He again filed application (Exh.122) seeking leave to deposit the charges as directed by the Court and for setting aside the dismissal of his earlier application. By the impugned order, his such application came to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel and on going through the impugned order, it is amply clear that the petitioner, who is original plaintiff, has indulged in dilatory tactics. The suit is old one. The petitioner did not adduce his evidence before the trial Court nor took effective steps to deposit the charges of the 3 Commission in the concerned office of TILR within a reasonable time frame. He and his advocate remained absent on the date of hearing i.e. 18.10.2007. No sufficient explanation was given as to why the charges of commission fees were not deposited in the office of the TILR before 18.10.2007. 5. Once it is noticed that the Court allowed application for appointment of the Court Commissioner then it will have to be inferred that there was need to get the lands measured in order to fix the boundaries. The dispute is regarding the boundaries of the lands. The suit is pending since long and is directed to be decided within a stipulated time frame. Considering these aspects, the trial Court should have imposed costs when the appointment of the Court Commissioner was found necessary. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) which shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period 4 of three (3) weeks alongwith the Commissioner's fees and process charges. The trial Court then may issue the Commission immediately after such compliance. If this direction is not complied with then the trial Court is at liberty to dismiss the suit itself for such non-compliance. The petitioner may adduce oral evidence in the meanwhile and the trial Court may also record evidence of the Respondents/defendants. The Commissioner if appointed may be examined at the end of the trial in support of the report as may be submitted, if the plaintiff so desires. With these observations, the petition is accordingly allowed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp10308