1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2039/2011 Vithalrao V. Chavan V/s. Bhagatrao R. Chavan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri. V. N. Patre, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 28 , 2011 . Heard Shri. V. N. Patre, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Trial Court, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, for inspection of the suit property. The Trial Court rightly held that, the Commissioner could not have been appointed for fixation of boundaries as this was not a case of encroachment but a case of perpetual injunction. The Trial Court held that the suit was simplicitor for issuance of perpetual injunction and hence it was necessary to reject the application filed by the petitioner since the Commissioner can not be appointed for collection of evidence. The order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. The judgment reported in AIR 2010 Himachal 2 Pradesh 5, can not be made applicable to the facts of this case as in the case before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, there was a boundary dispute between the parties. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Punde