1 wp 4822.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4822 OF 2011 Suresh Baburao Kshirsagar .. Petitioner Versus Chandrashekar Marotirao Sonawane and another .. Respondents Shri A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The respondent No. 1 who is original plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction in respect of land bearing gut No. 109. The petitioner/original defendant No. 2 does not dispute the ownership of the plaintiff over land gut No. 109. According to the petitioner he is the owner of gut No. 118. Their lands are adjacent lands. The Court vide the impugned order appointed the T. I. L. R. as Commissioner to measure both the lands. The said order is assailed in the present petition. 2. Shri Mukhedkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is no dispute about ownership of the 2 wp 4822.11 petitioner and respondent No. 1 over the respective lands and the suit is simplicitor suit for injunction, there is no necessity to appoint the T. I. L. R. as Court Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, the same would be exercise in futility. The learned counsel further contends that even after the order was passed the same was not executed for seven months and that was also one of the reason for filing the writ petition. 3. Shri Bilolikar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the amount for commission is already been deposited on very next day. But the same was not executed at the hands of the T. I. L. R. The T. I. L. R. is appointed to consider the boundaries, as there is a controversy about the same. It is not disputed that the lands are adjacent to each other. 4. The Court while passing the order has observed that the real controversy is about the boundaries. In the light of that the T. I. L. R. is appointed as Court Commissioner to measure the properties. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The discretion has been exercised by the Court in a proper manner. In view of that the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11