ssm 1 59.wp.8117.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8117 OF 2010 Shri. Rajan Anant Bhole ....Petitioner Versus Karjat Municipal Council and others ....Respondents __________ Ms. Gauri Godse for the Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Kadam for the Respondents. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18 TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges the order dated 14 th September, 2010, vide which the application filed by the present Petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner, came to be rejected. 3. The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction contending therein that the road which the Respondent Municipal Council has constructed, is contrary to the ssm 2 59.wp.8117.10 development plan and the resolution passed by the Municipal Council. In the said suit earlier, an application was filed for appointment of Court Commissioner. The same was rejected on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the pleadings in the plaint. Subsequently, another application has been filed which is impugned with the prayers made in the plaint. The same was rejected. 4. Ms. Godse, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that for bringing out factual position, the report of the Court Commissioner would have assisted the Court. 5. Mr. Manoj Kadam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, vehemently opposes the Petition and submits that the the learned Trial Court on earlier occasion rejected the application and therefore, the second application itself was not maintainable. 6. From the record it appears that the earlier application was rejected on the ground of non-conformity with the pleadings. ssm 3 59.wp.8117.10 The second application was rejected on the ground that it is in the nature of collecting evidences. This court in the Writ Petition No. 6497 of 2009 decided on 14 th March, 2011 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Haryana Waqf Board V/s. Shanti Sarup and others reported in (2008) 8SCC 671 has taken a view that in such matters, appointment of Court Commissioner would facilitate the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. It has further been observed that no prejudice would be caused to other side, in as much as if he is aggrieved by the report of the Court Commissioner, he can challenge the veracity of the same, by cross examining the Court Commissioner. The Petition therefore is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. Since the suit involves construction of public road, hearing of the suit is expedited. The learned Trial Court is now directed to dispose off the suit in any event within a period of six months from today. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner undertakes that the Plaintiffs would cooperate with Court. ssm 4 59.wp.8117.10 (B. R. GAVAI, J.)