1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8222 OF 2010 Shri Chandrashekhar Akhegaonkar Since Deceased through Legal Heirs Smt. Leela C. Akhegaonkar & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. Dr. Sharadkumar S. Akhegaonkar ...Respondent. Mr. A.V.Anturkar i/by Priten P. Killedar, advs., for the petitioners. Mr. Girish S. Kulkarni i/by Sandeep R. Waghmare, advs., for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 26th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 The original petitioner and the respondent were brothers inter-se. Each of them was in possession of some of the joint family property. Respondent filed Special Civil Suit No.555 of 1997 for partition and separate possession of the joint family property. Suit was decreed and the preliminary decree was passed in 19.09.1983. Appeal against that was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, preliminary decree had become final. In 1984, Respondent filed final decree proceeding. Even though more than 26 years have been passed thereafter final decree proceeding is not yet completed. In 1998 Advocate Mr. Sudhir Somalwal was appointed as commissioner to 2 propose partition and division of the property on 12.1.2000 petitioner filed application Ex.81 to remove Mr. Somalwar from the position of Commissioner. For this purpose he had taken 3 grounds, firstly, his son was taking treatment from the respondent , who is psychiatrist and, therefore, commissioner was under pressure to complete the commission work at the earliest. Secondly, without any authority from the Court in spite of the objection, Commissioner was trying to record evidence. Thirdly, without any authority from the Court and without consent of the parties, Commissioner had engaged an architect for the purpose of partition and division of the property. Application was opposed by the respondent and all the adverse allegation were denied. After hearing the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 4.8.2010 and rejected application Ex.81 for removal of the commissioner. Several other applications were disposed off. However, this petition is directed only against the order rejecting the application, Ex.81. 2 It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that first report was submitted by the Commissioner on 8.10.98 and the final report was also submitted by him on 18.1.2000. It appears that no objection has been filed by the petitioners to any of 3 those two reports, even though period of more than 10 years has passed. Application, Ex.81 was filed on 12.1.2000, i.e., just six days before the final report on 18.1.2000 was submitted. It appears that only intention was to prevent commissioner from submitting the final report and that is why it was alleged that it was reliable and recently learnt that son of the commissioner was taking treatment from the respondent and, therefore, he was under pressure to complete commission work earlier. If he completed commission work within reasonable time, in my considered opinion, no objection could be taken on that count. As the commission work is already completed and the report is also submitted, no purpose will be served by removing him. Only option before parties is to submit objections, if any, to the said report. The learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that even though commissioner wanted, he had never recorded evidence of the parties during the commission proceeding, therefore, that part of the objection also does not survive. If the commissioner, who is lawyer took the assistance of some architect for justifying proper division of the property, I do not find any illegality or wrong on his part. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, I find no substance in the present petition. 4 3 Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)