spb/- 1 wp1019-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1019 OF 2011 1. Smt. Dhondubai Mhamulal Naikwade since deceased through L.R’s Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. 1. Nuruddin Bandulal Mullani & Ors. ... Respondents. ­­­ Mr. C.G. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. ­­­­­ CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 08th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1 This petition is directed against an order dated 20th December, 2010 passed by the trial court, rejecting the application of the petitioner (original judgment debtor) for appointment of a court commissioner in execution proceedings. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a dispute as to the description of the property in respect of which the decree has been passed. The petitioner is in possession of the property larger than the property described in the decree and therefore, a court commissioner is required to be appointed. 3 The property has been described in paragraph 1 of the plaint which spb/- 2 wp1019-11.sxw forms part of the decree. In his written statement the defendant did not raise any contention, disputing the description of the property given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It is thus clear that application for appointment of a court commissioner is made only with a view to delay and protract the execution of the decree that has been passed. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court Bailiff would not be able to identify the suit property on the basis of the description of the property given in the decree. This contention is raised even before the Bailiff’s visit to the suit property. If the Bailiff is unable to identify the property with reference to the description given in the decree, the Bailiff would give report to that effect and then the court would decide the appropriate course to be followed. Application for the appointment of a court commissioner at this stage was premature and based upon an assumption that the Bailiff would not be able to identify the suit property. This assumption cannot be said to be correct for the time being. 5 There is no merit in the petition and it is hereby rejected. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]