1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2820 OF 2009 Jagannath Atmaram Hingane .. Petitioner Versus Dattatray Dagadu Lonkar .. Respondent Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17 th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order passed by the trial Court by which an application made by the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner for local inspection has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to amended written statement of the respondent in which according to him a boundary dispute has been raised by the respondent and he submitted that for resolving the dispute, appointment of a Survey Officer as Court Commissioner is 2 necessary. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not disputed that the respondent is in possession of a part of the property which is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. She pointed out that in fact the respondent has incorporated a plea of adverse possession in the written statement. 2. I find that there is no error in the impugned order. Even in the reply to the application for appointment of Court Commissioner, the respondent has come out with a case that there is no boundary dispute. As the contention of the respondent is that the respondent is in possession of a part of the suit property and as the respondent has pleaded the defence of adverse possession, the learned trial Judge was justified in not acceding to the prayer of appointment of Court Commissioner. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)