1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10874 OF 2009 Waman G. Shevkar .. Petitioner versus Ganpat D. Vidhate .. Respondent Mr.R.H.Gite for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the original plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the trial Court by which application made by them for appointment of Court Commissioner for local investigation has been rejected. 2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I find that trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. The petitioner No.7 stepped into witness box. According to the petitioners he stated in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief that the road mentioned in the suit was the only road available to the petitioners for approaching their property. In the examination-in- chief the petitioner No.7 stated that another road as contended by the respondents-defendants was not in existence. In the application for appointment 2 of Court Commissioner it is further stated that when a case was put up to petitioner No.7 in the cross-examination by the advocate for respondents that another road is in existence, due to inadvertance the 7th petitioner replied in the affirmative. The appointment of Commissioner is sought for establishing that the road as contended by the defendants is not in existence. Taking the averments made in the application for appointment of Commissioner as it is, it is obvious that appointment of Commissioner is sought to collect evidence which is not permissible. That is reason why the trial Court has rejected the said application. No interference is called for with the impugned order. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)