1 wp 5524.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5524 OF 2011 Babasaheb Adinath Tikte .. Petitioner Versus Sheshnath Adinath Tikte and others .. Respondents Smt. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit for declaration and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner should visit the spot and submit its report, as there is dispute regarding the boundaries. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Heard Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that when there is dispute about the boundaries, then the Commissioner needs to be appointed, 2 wp 5524.11 because in a dispute regarding the boundaries, it is the T. I. L. R. who would be in a position to state the exact boundaries. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court has not considered this aspect. 3. I have perused the application for appointment of Court Commissioner. The said application is not for appointment of the Court Commissioner to measure the land. A layman cannot fix the boundaries by spot inspection, nor Commissioner can be permitted to simply visit the spot and to submit the report of the existing nature of the property. In such circumstances, no error is committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the application. 4. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an application for appointment of T. I. L. R. as Court Commissioner. For the said purpose no liberty is required. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider it, on its own merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11