1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 222/2009 Naaryan Gyanoba Mahabale & others. .. Petitioners Versus Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded And others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. Ghadge, Advocate holding for Mr. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.D Kaldate, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 24th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18th October, 2008 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for review of the order dated 7th October 2008 came to be rejected. 2 2] The petitioners who claims to be residing in a housing society in Survey No. 173 have filed a suit praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing with their peaceful possession over the suit premises. It is the contention of the petitioner they are owners of the property in question and as such, they are entitled to continue with their possession and also entitled to decree of injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their peaceful possession. 3] The petitioners filed an application for appointment of TILR as Court Commissioner for measuring the lands in Surve No. 171, 172 and 173 and demarcating boundaries of each Gat Number. Accordingly, the TILR submitted a report alongwith the map of measurement. 4] However, the petitioners/plaintiffs were not satisfied with the measurements and submitted another application for appointing the Deputy Director of Land Records as court commissioner. It was contended by the plaintiffs that the measurement was not in accordance with the directions issued by the court vide order dated 4th April, 2005 and as such, it was necessary to measure the suit land as per the directions of the court. The said application was rejected vide order dated 7th October, 2008. However, since the petitioners’ counsel was not present when the order was passed, an application for review was filed. The same is also rejected by order dated 18th October, 2008. Hence, the present petition. 5] Shri Ghadge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application of the present petitioners so also the review application. He submits that when the 3 measurement was not done in accordance with the order dated 4th April, 2005, it was necessary that a fresh measurement was carried out by the superior officer. 6] Shri Pathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to 4 submits that the trial court has rightly rejected the application and as such, no interference is warranted. 7] Perusal of the orders, both while rejecting the application, so also, review petition, would reveal that the learned trial court has found that if any of the parties have any objection to the measurement made by the commissioner, it is permissible for them to examine the Commissioner in the open court and after examining the commissioner, the evidentiary value of the report of the court commissioner would be taken into consideration while deciding the suit. It has further been found that there was no substance in the objection raised by the plaintiffs that the report of the court commissioner was either false or erroneous. 8] It can not be said that the reasoning given by the learned trial court while rejecting the review application are either perverse or impossible so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is summarily rejected. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] GRT/