(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2011 Vishwanath s/o. Dnyanoba Marke, Aged : 69 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shriganwadi, Taluka : Kandhar, .. Petitioners District : Nanded, (Original appellants/ and 6 others. plaintiffs) versus Digambar s/o. Venkatrao Kature, Aged : 64 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shriganwadi, Taluka : Kandhar, .. Respondents District : Nanded, (Original respondents/ and 2 others. defendants) ....................... Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioners / plaintiff, for appointment of court commissioner, has been rejected after noticing that effort was to collect evidence. 2. Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the placement of road was to be brought on record and reliance is being placed upon Section 75 of the Evidence Act for this purpose. 3. The trial court has applied mind correctly. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/337wp