spb/- 1 wp1654-02.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2003 Smt. Bansadevi Rajnarayan Bachhan Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. 1. Damji Kunverji Bharani & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Ajay Patil i/by P.K. Dhakephalkar for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 08th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondents and their Advocate are absent when called. 2 By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of appointment of Court Commissioner passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay on 28th January, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the evidence of the parties concluded on 1st August, 2001 and the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was made on 7th September, 2002 i.e. nearly about one year after conclusion of the evidence of the parties and as such the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner ought not to have been allowed. spb/- 2 wp1654-02.sxw 3 The suit was filed by the respondents for eviction under the Rent Act. In the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner, the respondents have stated that after the last hearing which was fixed on 23rd July, 2002, the petitioners started some unauthorized alterations and made further encroachment in the open space outside the suit shop. The respondents specifically averred that the petitioners started unauthorized work on 28th August, 2002 and that the photographs of the unauthorized work were also taken on 31st August, 2002 and an application for appointment of Court Commissioner was made on 7th September, 2002. Since the unauthorized work was started on 28th August, 2002, it cannot be said that the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner made on 7th September, 2002 was in any way belated. In fact it was made immediately after unauthorized work was started. No exception can be taken to the impugned order on the ground that the application was belated. No other ground was urged. 4 There is no merit in the petition. It is hereby rejected. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] .....