1 wp 1299.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1299 OF 2010 Mahadu S/o Bapu Kadam .. Petitioner Versus 1. Khandu S/o Baba Kolekar and others .. Respondents Shri N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Madhweshwar Mhase/Thube, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original defendant No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for simplicitor injunction. During the pendency of suit the present petitioner filed an application Exhibit 50 for appointment of Court Commissioner who would take the aid of talathi and bring on record the exact position as it stands by panchanama, map and report. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 2 wp 1299.10 2. Shri Gaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is dispute about the boundaries and the area. In such circumstances, the Court Commissioner can take the aid of talathi and bring on record the exact position by preparing panchanama, map and submit the report. The Court while rejecting the said application has misconstrued the application and on the premise that the petitioner wants to bring on record the factum of possession has rejected the application. According to the learned counsel, the said report of the Court Commissioner would assist the Court in coming to the just conclusion. 3. Mrs. Thube, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the order passed by the learned Court and submits that the Court has rightly exercised the discretion and rejected the application. The enquiry into the possession of the parties in a suit for simplicitor injunction cannot be a subject matter of local investigation. 4. I have perused the application. The petitioner by application Exhibit 50 wants to bring on record the position of 3 wp 1299.10 gat Nos. 108, 109. The same would tantamount to collecting evidence which is not permissible. If the party contends that the dispute is regarding boundaries and the area of the particular survey numbers, then in such circumstances the same cannot be proved by a local investigation conducted by a layman, unless the same is to be resorted by the measurement and not by a layman. 5. The Court below has not committed any error while rejecting such application. As such, the petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11