1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 849/2009 (Rajabhau P. Chopde Vs. Dhondu Vitthal Kachkure & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 16 , 2009 . Heard Shri Khapre for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Jalgaon Jamod, on 31/12/2008, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of the Court Commissioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary for the trial Court to appoint a Commissioner so as to fix the western boundary of the defendant’s land to consider the issues involved in the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the description of the suit property and the properties owned by the parties, as pleaded in the written statement, was incorrect and, therefore, it was necessary to fix the boundaries, by appointing a Court Commissioner. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary to consider the extent of the land owned and possessed by Haribhau Kaware in between the lands of the defendant and Sayyad Manzur. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner was not the only person who had obstructed the Court Commissioner who had been appointed by the Court on an application made by the defendant, and hence the rejection of the application for appointment of the Court Commissioner was not proper for the aforesaid reason. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and have also perused the order and the other documents which are annexed to the petition. The trial Court, in its discretion, rejected the application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 31/12/2008. It does not appear from a perusal of the order and the other documents that the trial Court had exercised its discretion illegally or in a fanciful manner. The Court rightly observed that the Court Commissioner was appointed on an application filed by the defendant and the report of the Court Commissioner who was appointed earlier, clearly throws a considerable light on the controversy in issue. The Court found in paragraph 3 of the impugned order that a proper inference could have been drawn from the report of the Court Commissioner submitted on 18/12/2007. The Court also found that the petitioner was one of the persons who had obstructed the Court Commissioner while he was inspecting the spot before filing his report on 18/12/2007. The Court found that there was enough 3 material in the Commissioner’s report to consider whether there was any obstruction to the cart way which was to be used by the petitioner. Since the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 31/12/2008 does not suffer from any serious illegality or from a jurisdictional error, it would not be proper to interfere with the same in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP