1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2288 of 2008 Smt.Sushila Devgonda Patil & ors. Petitioners Vs. Shri Angonda Babgonda Patil & ors. Respondents Mr.Vijay Killedar for petitioners. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 3, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2005. The plaintiffs in the said suit submitted an application at Exhibit 13 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of CPC and prayed for appointment of the Commissioner. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 25/1/2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kurundwad, Taluka Shirol. . The suit is filed for permanent injunction and in the alternative partition in the property. As per the plaintiff the land in Gat No.1642-A and B is in his possession to the extent of half on the North of Gat No.1642-A and to the South of land in Gat 2 No.1642-B, and from the Eastern side of Gat No.1642 a chamber for distribution of water is located and there is no pipe water supply and water is flowing from the land. All these details are not available on record by way of any sketch or map and, therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for appointment of Court Commissioner to ascertain the abovestated locations in respect of the gat numbers. . The defendants had filed their Say at Exhibit 15 and while opposing the application they had stated that if the Commissioner is appointed, Para 4A, B and C of the reply should be taken into consideration by the Commissioner and the expenses of the Commissioner’s fees should be shared by both the parties. By the impugned order the learned Judge had accepted that the fees / expenses will have to be shared equally by both the parties and he thought it appropriate that the Commissioner visits the suit land and submits a report. Consequently Advocate Shri G.S.Mane has been appointed as the Court Commissioner and he was directed to submit his report along with the map by 25/2/2008. His fees has been decided at Rs.1000/-. 3 . Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the reasoning set out by the trial Court, I do not find any case made out to cause interference in the impugned order in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. . Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL