( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2008 Vijaykumar Manikrao Kulkarni and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Yamunabai Govindrao Kulkarni, through Power of Attorney, Narsingh Govindrao Kulkarni and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Chandole, advocate holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.F. Totla, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants No. 1 and 2 against whom the interim injunction order is passed by the learned Civil Judge on application (Exh-5) in suit (R.C.S. No. 14/2007). The petitioners preferred an appeal bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/2007 which came to be dismissed. Against the concurrent judgements ( 2 ) of the Courts below, this petition is filed, alleging that without proper identity of the suit land, the injunction should not have been granted. 3. It is argued by Mr. Chandole that the Court Commissioner ought to have been appointed as per request of the petitioners in order to ascertain the boundaries. In my opinion, the appointment of the Court Commissioner is altogether a different aspect of the matter. The Courts below have examined the documentary evidence and the affidavits of the parties. The discretion exercised by the Courts below is based on material placed on record. The impugned orders cannot be regarded as perverse. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file afresh application in the trial Court for appointment of the Court Commissioner and measurement through the Taluka Inspector of Land Records (T.I.L.R.). [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP4980-08