( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2180 OF 2010 Kamlakar s/o Manoharrao Bhandekar PETITIONER R/o Bhagya Nagar, Beed. VERSUS Laxman Sakharam Vangujare RESPONDENT R/o Navgaon Rajuri, Dist. Beed. ..... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [DATE : 15th April, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel. 2. The rejection of appointing Commissioner in Regular Civil Suit No. 266/2009 below Exhibit-29 is tried to be debated. The learned Judge found that the application was moved under Order-XXVI Rule-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunction for a disputed land of 40 feet x 40 feet while the defendant came with a case of 80 feet x 45 feet of the land. The learned Judge has rightly observed that ( 2 ) when the dispute centres about possession, and if the party is asserting rights or possession on the disputed portion and denied by the defendant, in such contingencies, appointment of Court Commissioner is not permissible as it would be an assistance by the Court to collect the evidence in support of the concerned party. This being the correct legal possession, rejection of application (Exh-29) by the learned Judge need not be questioned. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner – Kamlakar to apply for appointment of Taluka Inspector of Land Records (T.I.L.R.) and it is for the learned Judge of the trial Court to independently deal with the same uninfluenced by outcome of present writ petition. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2180-2010