( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6782 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o Chandrakant Reddy PETITIONER VERSUS Gurshant s/o Nagappa Lature & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. P.M. Yelnoorkar, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved due to rejection of his application for appointment of Court Commissioner to visit the agricultural land in question and to note down certain features viz. cattle-shed with zinc sheets’ roof bearing their name, existence of agricultural implements, bullocks, etc. and the nature of agricultural work going on in the suit field. The trial Court rejected the application to appoint such Court Commissioner exparte without giving notice to the other side. According to the petitioner’s counsel, giving of notice to other side would frustrate the very purpose of the application ( 2 ) because the salient features of the claimed possession are likely to be lost and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 3. It is explicit that the purpose of filing the application is to collect evidence regarding alleged possession of the petitioner. It is well settled that Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to carry out the work of collecting an evidence as such. There is no tangible material on record to show that the respondent disputed the existence of the cattle-shed or the existence of agricultural implements, etc. in the premises of cattle-shed. The impugned order is rendered by the trial Court in the discretion available and the object of appointment of the said Commissioner is not found to be within the four corners of Order-XXXIX Rule-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6782-10 ( 3 )