1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1364 OF 2010 1 Vishwambhar s/o Nagorao Kadam, age: 66 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Takalgaon, Tq. & District Latur. 2 Suryakant s/o Nagorao Kadam, age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Takalgaon, Tq. & District Latur. Petitioners Versus 1 Siddheshwar Shivaji Ghavale, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Takalgaon, Tq. & District Latur. 2 Audambar s/o Shivaji Ghavale, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Takalgaon, Tq. & District Latur. 3 Bhaskar s/o Shivaji Ghavale, age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Takalgaon, Tq. & District Latur. 4 Sau.Meerabai w/o Siddheshwar Ghavale, age: 38 years, Occ: Household & Agril., R/o Takalgaon, Tq. & District Latur. Respondents Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for petitioners. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22nd March, 2010. PER COURT : 2 1 Heard Shri P.D.Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for petitioners. 2 The challenge raised in the petition is in respect of interlocutory order passed by trial Court during pendency of suit, rejecting application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner for measuring lands on second occasion. 3 Initially request was made by petitioners seeking appointment of T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner for measuring disputed land. As per the request made by petitioners, trial Court made appointment of Commissioner for measuring disputed property. The measuring officer accordingly conducted measurement and submitted report to the Court. According to petitioners, there is contradiction in two measurement reports placed on record and as such, request was made for appointment of higher ranking officer for conducting measurement. The Trial Court has turned down the request. 4 It is also to be noted that the suit was initially decided and appeal was carried by petitioners. The first appellate Court allowed appeal and remitted matter back to the trial Court so as to facilitate the petitioners 3 to tender an application for measuring disputed property. Once the directions issued by first appellate Court having been complied with, it was also not appropriate for petitioners to extend the request once again. The trial Court has rightly dealt with the matter and rejected the application. No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 Petition, therefore, stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp136410