(1) WP. 954.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 954 OF 2010 Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Prakashchandra Ramprasadji Attal and others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.S. Londhe, Advocate h/f. Mr. U.S. Mote, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for the respondent no.5-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioners challenge the order dated 12th November, 2009 rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Beed whereby application (Exh. 48) filed in suit bearing R.C.S. 335 of 2007 for re-appointment of the Court Commissioner came to be rejected. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that T.I.L.R. was appointed to inspect and measure the (2) WP. 954.2010 disputed site. The petitioners are original defendants 1 to 3. They would submit that the measurement carried out by the T.I.L.R. is defective and improper. According to them, re-measurement is required to be carried out and for such purpose, re-appointment of the T.I.L.R. is necessary. The trial Court held that if the report of the T.I.L.R. is being challenged, the petitioners are at liberty to cross-examine the T.I.L.R. as contemplated under section 154 of the Evidence Act. The petitioners may thereafter, disown the correctness of the map and point out as to how the inaccuracy did creep in. The re-appointment of the Court Commissioner is not essential under the circumstances. The learned Judge has given adequate reasons in support of the impugned order. No interference is called for. Petition dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp