(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5028 OF 2009 Sanjay s/o. Raghunathrao Matlakute. .. Petitioner (Original plaintiff) versus 1. Namdeo s/o. Daulatrao Suryawanshi, .. Respondent 2. Daulat s/o. Namdeorao Suryawanshi. (Original defendants) .......................... Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16th February 2009, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parbhani, below Exhibit 54 in Regular Civil Suit No. (2) 155/2007, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for appointment of Superintendent of Land Record, Parbhani, as court commissioner. 2. Mr. P.N. Kalani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that by an earlier order, the trial court had directed the Taluka Inspector of Land Record to be appointed as court commissioner. He, however, submits that the said court commissioner did not visit the spot personally and prepared the map and the report. He submits that the signature of the plaintiff was taken on a map and some other map was produced in the court. He submits that since the report of the Taluka Inspector of Land Record was not in accordance with the directions issued by this court, the petitioner had filed an application for appointing the Superintendent of Land Record as court commissioner. He submits that the same is erroneously rejected. He further relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court, in the case of Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi Vs. Dinkar Yashwant Patil (2004(1) Mh.L.J. 138), and the unreported judgment, dated 4th May 2009, in Second Appeal No. 97/2009 (Vijay s/o. Shrawan Shende & 2 others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal, and 3 others). 3. Mr. S.K. Chavan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the learned Judge of the trial court has rightly rejected the application by taking into consideration the relevant material and, as such, no interference is warranted. 4. On the application of the plaintiff himself, by an earlier (3) order, the Taluka Inspector of Land Record was appointed as court commissioner. Accordingly, he has prepared the report and drawn the map which is submitted to the court. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the measurements and the report of the court commissioner, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the said report in the cross examination of the court commissioner. The petitioner can also do so by placing on record other material. In any case, report of the court commissioner is not conclusive proof. Whether to accept the report, or not, will have to be determined by the learned Judge of the trial court after the evidence is adduced on behalf of the parties. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5028