1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 OF 2010 (Jaidev Ramhari Pawar vs. Sudam Kaniram Rathod Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2010. Heard Shri Ateeque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.J. Mirza, Advocate holding for Shri R.J. Mirza, learned counsel for the respondents. After the petitioner – plaintiff closed his evidence, before commencing their evidence Respondents – defendants sought appointment of Commissioner to bring on record the position of pipelines laid in field to irrigate their own field. The appointment is sought to bring before the Court the position of pipeline from Survey Nos. 304 and 291 to see how old pipeline is and to examine the type of crops grown by them. The application was opposed and trial Court has allowed that application. Shri Ateeque, learned counsel states that effort of the respondents is to collect evidence and they are avoiding to discharge burden placed upon them. Shri Mirza, learned counsel states that as factual position can become clear by spot inspection, the application was filed and the trial Court has in its 2 discretion given the relief. I find that such an application can be moved by the respondents after they lead their evidence and after they are subjected to cross examination. If at that stage necessity of filing such an application is felt and or then the trial Court finds it proper to have field inspected through Commissioner, the trial Court shall consider such an application and make appropriate orders in this respect. The impugned order which has the effect of collecting evidence on behalf of the respondents is quashed and set aside. The application at Exh. 58 is rejected. However, with liberty as pointed out above, writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.