IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2006 MRS. FRANSQUINHA DE'MELLO,THROUGH HER POWER OF ATORNEY SHRI LUIS DE'MELLO, RIBANDAR GOA. ... Petitioner Versus SHRI DAMIAN FRANCIS FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri N. Vaze, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 12th March, 2009 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. None present on behalf of the Respondents. The Petitioner is Respondent No.2 before the District and Sessions Court, Panaji. An application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner before the said Court with a view to get a Commissioner appointed as the Petitioner apprehended that the Respondent herein was doing some construction. The learned District Judge by the impugned Order dated 30-6-2006 has appointed a Commissioner calling for the report as regards the state of the house, as the Applicant apprehended that some construction work was being undertaken in respect of the said house. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sanjay v. Sahebrao and others(2001(1) ALL MR 653) wherein this Court has stated that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. This decision is inapplicable to the facts of the case because the Court has appointed a Commissioner only to visit the site and find out the position in loco. The Commissioner is bound to file his report and inform the Court accordingly. Parties would be entitled to take objections to the said report as well. Considering the nature of the Order passed this is not a fit case for interference in the light of what the Apex Court has stated in Surya Dev Rai v. Ramchander Rai and others(2003(6) SCC 675). Petition rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.