1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1655/2011 (Vitthal P. Surve VERSUS State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 7 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 09.03.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Commissioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of the Commissioner. The Court rightly observed that the plaint was silent in regard to the identification of the suit property, the Survey Number, the Block Number, the Municipal or the Gram Panchayat Number. The Court rightly observed that since the petitioner had come up with a case that the defendant nos.3 to 6 were trying to encroach upon the Government land, the Revenue Authorities could have taken the steps against the so called encroachment, if any. The Court also observed that the suit was at the stage of arguments and the application was not 2 filed by the petitioner though the matter was pending before the Court since the year 2005, for a period of six years. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was of the view that the Gram Panchayat/ defendant no.7 would tender evidence in this regard and, hence the petitioner did not think it necessary to examine the Commissioner at an earlier point of time, is ill-founded and is liable to be rejected as the petitioner ought to have proved his case by tendering evidence and could not have waited for the defendant no.7-Gram Panchayat to tender evidence in his favour. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE