1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON WRIT PETITION NO.7085 OF 2010 Shri.Tukaram Eknath Bahirat & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Shri.Gorakh Nivrutti Chowdhary & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Lalita Panchakshari for the Petitioner. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 24th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 24th June, 2009 passed by learned 13th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Pune below Exh.14 in R.C.Suit No.1020 of 2008. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected application made by the petitioners – original plaintiffs for appointment of Court Commissioner. 2. Petitioners instituted suit for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents-Defendants from releasing excess water in Gat Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 73 and 74. In order to establish that the Respondents are causing damage or loss to the petitioners by releasing excess water, the application was made by the petitioners for appointment of the Court Commissioner. That application was opposed by the Respondents. 3. After hearing both sides, learned trial Judge rejected application by the impugned order. In the impugned order, learned trial Judge observed that the petitioners-plaintiffs are trying to collect evidence by way of Court Commissioner, which is not 2 permissible. Petitioners can examine the witnesses and bring material on record to substantiate their claim that the Respondents are releasing excess water and are causing damage or loss to the petitioners. 4. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge did not commit any error in rejecting the application. The learned trial Judge has not committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse. Hence, petition is rejected. (R.G.Ketkar, J.)