gst 1 wp8368.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 8368 OF 2010. Vasant Namdeo Survase & Ors. .... ...... ...Petitioners. V/s Namu Bira Gejage & Ors. ... ..... ..Respondents. Mr.V.S.Talkute, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.P.G.Chavan, Adv. For respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 19th Jan., 2011. PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing. By the present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.9.2000 vide which the application filed by the respondent-defendant for appointment of Court Commissioner is allowed. 2. The petition needs to be allowed on short ground. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Judge has allowed the application without assigning any reasons. The only reasoning given is that for decision in the matter it is necessary that the suit premises are inspected and report along with map is placed before the Court. 3. When a discretion is vested with the Court, the Court is required to exercise the same by giving cogent and sound reasons. There are catena of judgments by this Court as to in what manner jurisdiction under Order 26 rule 9 is to be exercised. The learned Judge leave aside referring to them has not even considered as to why it was necessary to appoint the Commissioner. In that view of the matter the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the trial Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms with not order as to costs. gst 2 wp8368.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 8369 OF 2010. Vasant Namdeo Survase & Ors. .... ...... ...Petitioners. V/s Vilas Sitram Survase & Ors. ... ..... ..Respondents. Mr.V.S.Talkute, Adv. For the petitioners. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 19th Jan., 2011. PC: By the present petitioner the petitioner challenges the order dated 27.8.2010 vide which the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for joining them as party-defendant came to be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in allowing the application. It is submitted that the said respondents were not at all necessary for adjudication of the dispute and as such the trial Court ought not to have thrust them upon the plaintiff against petitioner's wishes. 3. In view of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure if the trial Court finds it that for adjudication of a dispute certain parties are necessary, the Court will have the jurisdiction to permit such parties to be added. Jurisdiction is therefore discretionary in nature. Unless discretion is found to have been exercised in perverse manner, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In any event the order impugned is purely an interlocutory order. 4. Learned trial Judge in the facts of the present case has found that presence of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was necessary for deciding the suit. No perversity could be noticed in the discretion exercised by the trial Judge to warrant interference. Hence writ petition stands dismissed. gst 3 wp8368.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 8438 OF 2010 Shahaji Rajaram Khilare .... .... ..... ..Petitioner. V/s Nijam Babulal Tamboli & Ors. ... .... .... ..Respondents. Mr.V.S.Talkute, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.P.G.Chavan, Adv. For respondent Nos. 5 to 9. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 19th Jan., 2011. PC: Issue Notice. Returnable in six weeks. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) granted.