1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8054 OF 2009 Rajaram s/o. Shivaram Choudhari .. Petitioners Versus Nana s/o. Shankar Choudhari and another. .. Respondent. --- Mr. U. S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 5th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th August, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner came to be rejected. 2] Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the dispute was regarding an encroachment the learned trial court ought to have allowed the application. He relies on the judgment of the learned Single 2 Judge in the case of “ Kashinath Chindhuji Shastri Vs. Haribhau Nathuji Bawanthade” reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 722. 3] The matter of appointment of court commissioner is within the discretion of the learned trial court. Unless it is found that the discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner, it will not be permissible for this court to interfere in the matter. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the matter of “Kashinath Shastri” ( supra) is concerned, this court, in the case of “Pandurang Nandlal Chandak and another Vs. Sandip Mukundrao Pensalwar and and another” reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 487, has held that the view taken by another learned Single Judge of this court in the matter of “Sanjay Namdeo Khandare Vs. Sahebrao Kachru Khandare and others” reported in 2001(1) All M.R. 653, lay down a correct position of law. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 2003, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-