1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8572 OF 2010 Shrikant Pratap Sakhala and others Petitioners Versus Umakant Jagnath Gindodiya and others Respondents Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondents CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th September, 2010. P.C.: 1 An interlocutory order passed by the trial Court on 02.09.2010, appointing the Court Commissioner for local inspection, is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 Plaintiffs – Respondents herein have presented a suit for securing decree of injunction against defendants, who claimed to be tenants in respect of the suit property. It is not controverted that application seeking interim relief is pending before the trial Court. Defendants have caused their appearance and have presented a pursis to the Court at Exhibit-13 stating that repair work of the disputed wall is already complete and as such there is no occasion to grant interim orders. Plaintiffs, however, contend that due to heavy rains, which 2 occurred on 27.06.2010, both the walls have collapsed and under the garb of making repairs, defendants are trying to reconstruct the walls without seeking permission of plaintiffs. The photographs showing status of the property are presented along with the application. Defendants, on the contrary, contend that repair work is already carried out and application presented by plaintiffs is for collecting evidence, which shall not be permitted by the Court. 3 I have perused the application as well as interim order passed by the trial Court. In the circumstances stated above, appointment of Commissioner for local inspection cannot be said to be for the purposes of collecting evidence, however, it will facilitate the Court to understand the controversy. It would be permissible in accordance with Rule 7 Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have inspection of the suit property at the instance of the Court. It appears that the Court has resorted to the provisions of Rule 7 Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in order to bring the facts before the Court, the order of appointment of Court Commissioner, cannot be said to be erroneous or beyond purview of jurisdiction of the Court. At this interlocutory stage of the proceedings, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 4 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp857210