1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7899 OF 2009 Ratanbai Bharat Todmal and another. Petitioner. V E R S U S Sitaram Rambhaji Ravade and others. Respondents. Shri D.G.Nagode, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 02.02.2009 vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for appointment of court commissioner came to be rejected. 2. Respondents have filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of suit premises. The suit is resisted by the petitioner-defendants. During the pendency of the suit an application came to be filed under Order 26 Rule 9 for appointment of Court Commissioner. Same is rejected. Hence present petition. 3. Shri D.G. Nagode, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned trial court has erred in rejecting the 2 application. He submits that for finding out factual position, appointment of the court commissioner is necessary. 4. The jurisdiction under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC to appoint Court Commissioner, is discretionary. Unless discretion is found to be exercised with perversity, it is not permissible for this court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned Trial court has given sound and cogent reasons as to why the appointment of Court commissioner is not necessary. It is also found that an application is filed to prolong the matter. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) ..... aaa/7899.09