( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2010 1. Kashinath s/o Sudam Kumbhar 2 Vishwanath s/o Sudam Kumbhar Both r/o Jamb (Kd.), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. PETITIONERS VERSUS Balaji s/o Narshinga Phulari, R/o Jamb (Kd.), Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, advocate holding for Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. U.B. Bondar, advocate for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd May, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent is original defendant. The petitioners are original plaintiffs. In petitioners’ suit (R.C.S. No. 24/2006) for relief of injunction, the respondent submitted application (Exh-63) for appointment of Court ( 2 ) Commissioner. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application inspite of objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed an application seeking review of the order. There was delay of ten (10) days in filing such application. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the review application. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs challenge all the three orders. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. The application submitted by the respondent shows that no specifications were given as to what the Court Commissioner was expected to verify at the suit property. There was no specific reason given for the appointment of the Court Commissioner. It was vaguely stated that in the interest of justice, it would be proper to call for report of the Court Commissioner after visiting the suit property. The order impugned shows that the Court Commissioner was appointed without giving any particular directions. Unless the appointment of Court Commissioner is with specific purpose, it is not likely to cause any substantial addition in the process of evaluation of the controversial fact situation. The ( 3 ) direction given by the learned Civil Judge is as follows : “Shri S.S. Gaikwad, Adv. is hereby appointed as Court Commissioner and he is directed to inspect the suit property as per application and say of plaintiff, prepare map and submit report till next date.” Perusal of the above direction reveals that there was non- application of judicial mind while considering the relevant application (Exh-63). The Court Commissioner was directed to act according to say of plaintiff though the application was moved by the defendants. He was directed to inspect the suit property, as per application. Indeed, the application is too vague and, therefore, such direction also is tuned out to be more vague and ambiguous. Under the circumstances, the impugned order for appointment of the Court Commissioner is incorrect, illegal and liable to be quashed. Moreover, it is pertinent to notice that the petitioners are original plaintiffs. They will be required to prove their lawful possession independently. The question of possession cannot be determined on basis of vague report which will be result of mere visit of the Court Commissioner if the impugned order is to be complied with by the appointed Commissioner. In this ( 4 ) view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp368-2010