1 wp 5940.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5940 OF 2010 Tukaram S/o Vithal More and others .. Petitioners Versus Navnath S/o Baburao Dhange .. Respondent Shri Prashant Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A. S. More, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner are the original defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application for inspection of the suit site. Before the decision on the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 05), the application of the petitioners for appointment of Commissioner for spot inspection is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 2. Shri Prashant Deshmukh, the learned counsel for petitioners states that the Commissioner can be appointed for 2 wp 5940.10 inspection of the suit site. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bhagwat Math Vs. Madhav Memorial Pathagar reported in 2006 (9) S.C.C. 221 and submits that the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the said application. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that in fact, the purpose for which the Commissioner was appointed now does not exist. Exhibit 05 has already been decided by the Court. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence. 4. The appointment of Commissioner is discretion of the Court. Perusal of the application, it is manifest that the petitioners wanted the Commissioner to be appointed to inspect the suit site for elucidating the possession and the petitioners desired said appointment before the decision of Exhibit 05. Exhibit 05 is already decided. The Trial Court on consideration of the judgment of this Court in a case of Sanjay Vs. Sahebrao has come to the conclusion that the petitioners wanted Commissioner to be appointed for collection of evidence and the plaintiff has to prove his case about possession. 3 wp 5940.10 5. The discretion exercised by the Court does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed, however with no costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11