(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2011 Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Mandal, Shevgaon, At Post : Shevgaon, District : Ahmednagar, .. Petitioners Through Secretary, (Original defendant and 6 others. nos.1 to 6 & 12) versus Sharadkumar Madanlal Zawar, .. Respondents Aged : 61 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Business, plaintiff & R/o. Aadte Bazar, Ahmednagar, Nos. 2 to 6 - Original Taluka & District : Ahmednagar, defendant nos. 7 to 11) and 5 others. ....................... Mr. Anup Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Anup Patil, holding for Adv. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15-2-2011, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shevgaon, below Exhibit 250 in Regular Civil Suit No. 151/1999. 3. The respondent / plaintiff filed application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC and trial court appointed commissioner for measurement. Report of that commissioner is on record. It was objected to by the petitioners / defendants. Thereafter, in due course, that commissioner (TILR) entered into witness box. He has been cross examined by the petitioner / defendant. 4. According to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, glaring inconsistencies are brought on record in that cross examination. Because of that cross examination, appointment of fresh commissioner is necessary. During arguments, it is brought to notice of this court, that both parties have already finished their evidence. According to the learned (3) Counsel, if the request made by the petitioners / defendants for appointment of commissioner is granted at this stage, no prejudice will be caused to anybody. 5. It is apparent that the petitioners / defendants never sought appointment of any court commissioner. It was respondent / plaintiff who moved that application and it was granted. Report submitted by that commissioner is objected to by the present petitioners and going by the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners / defendants have substantiated their objections to that report of commissioner. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to appoint court commissioner again for the very same purpose. The trial court can appreciate evidence on record and arrive at a proper conclusion. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1762