1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITOIN NO. 1891/2011 Rahul Tikaram Silhare and another. VERSUS Vijay R. Vishwakarma and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 : APRIL 20 , 2011 . Heard Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an advocate as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the land in dispute. It was the case of the petitioner before the trial court that there was a dispute between the parties about the boundary of the suit property and also in regard to the measurement of the suit property. The trial court held, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and rightly so that this could not have been a ground for appointment of a Court Commissioner, specially an advocate as desired by the petitioner. The court observed that there are three measurement maps carried out by the TILR on record. According to the court, the three maps produced before the court were sufficient to identify the disputed land. The court 2 held that a commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence and in this case a commissioner could not have been appointed when there were three maps on record and the parties had already tendered their evidence and the matter was fixed for arguments. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan