1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 374/2011 (Rajesh L. Salunke VERSUS Abhijeet S. Bhandari & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Chandurkar with Shri H. Dhumale, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 19 , 2011 . Heard. On hearing the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order along with the pleadings, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Commissioner. The petitioner had sought the appointment of the Commissioner only on the ground that the plaintiffs had not mentioned the boundaries of the suit property correctly in the plaint and had intentionally mentioned the wrong boundaries with a view to mislead the Court. The trial Court rightly held that this could not have been a ground for appointment of the Court Commissioner, specially when the suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction only and it was not a case of encroachment. The trial Court observed that considering the nature of the suit, there was no need to appoint the Commissioner for getting the land measured as it is a well settled position of law that a Commissioner should not be 2 appointed to collect the evidence and can be appointed with a view to elucidate the matter in dispute. Considering the nature of the suit and the pleadings of the parties, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The judgments reported in AIR 1996 Kerala 276 (Payani Achuthan Versus Chamballikundu Harijan Fisheries Development Co-operative Society & others) and AIR 1988 Orissa 248 (Mahendranath Parida Versus Purnananda Parida & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In fact, the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 1998 AIHC 1702 (Ankura and Akrura Charan Sahu & another Versus Arjuna Charan Palei & others) supports the case of the respondents. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE