1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1627 OF 2009 1. Dharmaraj Pandharinath Thorat, 2. Balasaheb Dharmaraj Thorat, Both R/o. Bankaranja, Tq. Keij, Dist. Beed. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed. 2. The Superintendent of Land Records, Beed. 3. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Bhimrao Kishanrao Thorat, R/o. Bankaranja, Tq. Keij, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri.S.S.Choudhari , Advocate for petitioners. Shri.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11th December 2008 vide which the application filed by the 2 present petitioners/ plaintiffs for appointment of Court Commissioner came to be rejected. 2. The petitioners/ plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the meantime, an application came to be filed for appointment of Court Commissioner. It is contention of the petitioners that for finding out the condition of babhul tree, it is necessary to appoint the Court Commissioner. 3. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order has observed that the suit is for an injunction and not for damages and as such nothing would turn on the condition of the babhul tree. 4. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial Court so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting the evidence. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp1627.09