1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3877 OF 2008 Shri. Dattu S. Falke ......Petitioner Versus Shri. Murlidhar D.Karpe and Ors ...........Respondents --------------- Mr.V.B.Tapkir, Advocate for petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 03RD JULY, 2008. P.C. : 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in R.C.S.No.372 of 2007 pending in the court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Khed, Dist.Pune. The dispute in the suit concerns access from the petitioners land. The respondents who are having the business of stone crushing and who have purchased the adjoining lands for the purpose of their business, claim to have a right over the land of the petitioner for the purpose of transporting the stone material. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are actually demanding a new road and there is a no road 2 in existence on his land. 2. The respondents had filed an application, (Exhibit C-31) for appointment of Court Commissioner. That application was opposed by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge granted the application and appointed Advocate Shri. D.S.Rode as Court Commissioner with a direction to carry out the work of commission with prior intimation to both the parties. The Commissioner has been further directed to bring on record the factual aspect relating to the suit property and the aspects shown by the petitioner and the respondents. The costs of the commissioner are directed to be borne by the respondents. 3. Mr.Tapkir, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the application at Exhibit -31 is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondents to collect evidence through the Court Commissioner. He submits that the respondents must bring their own evidence before the court to establish the case of access over the petitioner' s property. 4. The impugned order has been passed by the trial court in view of the diametrically opposites claims made by the parties. It cannot be said 3 that the application made by the respondent is with a view of collecting evidence for themselves. The report of the commissioner would indicate whether the road is in existence as alleged by the respondents. In the event, the report indicates that there is no road in existence at site on the petitioner's property, the report would support the petitioner. In the circumstances, no fault whatsoever can be found with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed in limine. (JUDGE)