1 wp 7855.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7855 OF 2011 Anna Kisanrao Vyavhare .. Petitioner Versus Sahebrao Kisanrao Dhas and anr. .. Respondents Smt. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the Court has erroneously rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner. The petitioner has filed on record the orders of the Tahsildar showing that the permission has been granted to the petitioner to lay down the pipeline. The Court Commissioner is required to be appointed to elucidate the matter in dispute and Order 26 Rule 9 gives ample power to the Court to appoint the Court Commissioner for such purposes. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court has erroneously 2 wp 7855.11 observed that the application is filed to collect the evidence. The application is filed to elucidate the matter and that would assist the court in arriving at a just conclusion. 2. To appoint the Court Commissioner as per Sec. 75 read with Order 26 Rule 9 is the discretion of the Court. I have perused the order of the Court rejecting the application. The petitioner can prove the fact of pipeline by independent evidence. The Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence. The petitioner will have to prove its own case and adduce evidence in that regard. The Court has found that there is no necessity to appoint the Court Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting suit site and report about the existence of the pipeline. 3. In view of the above, no error is committed by the Court below. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11