1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3361 of 2009 (Wamanrao A. Uke v. Sanjay B. Ramtake and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri V.D. Darne, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 25 th August, 2009 This petition is directed against the rejection of the petitioner’s application at Exhibit 23 for inspection of a spot. The spot is a field, which, according to the petitioner, is in his possession and which does not show that it was at any time fragmented in order to give effect to the alleged sale-deeds on which the respondents have relied. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have admitted that there is no fragment and yet inspection of spot was sought in order to elicit a report from the Commissioner that the field has never been fragmented. Now if something is admitted, it is not necessary to tender any proof. In any case, the field is in possession of the petitioner himself. Therefore, the petitioner can tender 2 evidence about the facts, which can be observed by any witnesses including the expert witnesses, if the petitioner wants to examine them. The appointment of the Commissioner is thoroughly unwarranted. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the two judgments of this Court. In Ramchandra s/o Bhikaji Jagtap v. Dudharam Langruji Padvekar (dead thru LRs) and others, reported at 2003(4) ALL MR 990, and Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi v. Dinkar Yashwant Patil, reported at 2003(4) ALL MR 1083, this Court had held that the Trial Court had discretion to order local investigation. This Court had also held that the object of the local investigation is not so much to collect evidence which can be taken in Court but to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot. Now had the spot been inaccessible to the petitioner or his witnesses, the application could have been considered, since the petitioner would have been unable to inspect the spot or tender evidence in respect of the observations at the spot. But since the field is in possession of the petitioner, he can have the field inspected by an expert and tender evidence without the intervention of the Court. As observed in the two judgments, the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court and unless it is found 3 that the discretion was capriciously exercised, interference is uncalled for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl