1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6129 OF 2009 Gayabai W/o Sopanrao Damale ... PETITIONER. VERSUS Ashwini W/o Machindra Damale & others .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Qazi Syed Mateenuddin, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,3 & 5 (absent) Resondent Nos. 2,4,6 to 8 served (absent) ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 29th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard Senior Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition take exception to the order dated 07-08-2009 in Regular Civil Suit No. 180 of 2005 below Exh. 56 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order rejecting application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner is without assigning any reasons whatsoever. The learned Senior Counsel, invited my attention to the grounds and pleadings in the petition and submitted that, since the order impugned in this petition is not a speaking order, the same may be quashed and set aside. 4. Though the respondents are duly served non appears for them. 5. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is without assigning any reasons and even learned Judge did not advert to the contents in the application filed by the petitioner. The impugned order is not passed on merits and application for appointment of court commissioner has been rejected on the ground that the said application is filed belatedly and to delay the proceedings of the suit. In my considered view the Court below should have decided the application on merits and should have considered the prayer for the appointment of court commissioner in the light of contents of the application. 6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 3 07-08-2009 below Exh. 56 in R.C.S. No. 108 of 2005, is quashed and set aside and the said application is restored to its original position. The Court below is directed to hear the application of the petitioner afresh by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties and decide the same on merits. Till the said application is decided, the interim relief granted by this Court by order dated 7th October, 2009 to continue. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by court below, the interim relief to continue for further four weeks thereafter. 7. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] SDM/*WP6129.09.