1 wp 9496.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9496 OF 2011 Aminbai Ibrahimsab Shaikh .. Petitioner Versus Rashidkhan Sujatkhan Pathan .. Respondent Shri Dhananjay P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court below has not properly considered the application for appointment of T. I. L. R. as a Court Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, the T. I. L. R. is necessary for location of the suit site. The petitioner has given specific boundaries. Even the respondent is claiming the said land. In view of that the specific prayer was made that the boundaries may be fixed of the suit plot. The appointment of T. I. L. R. as a Court Commissioner would have assisted the Court for arriving at a just conclusion. The learned counsel submits that 2 wp 9496.11 the Trial Court in view of Sec. 75 r/w Order 26 Rule 9 should have appointed the Court Commissioner. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order and the pleadings. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of plot No. 18 from Sy. No. 116/D, whereas the respondent claims to be the owner of land from Sy. No. 116/K. It does not appear to be a case of overlapping boundaries. When the defendant in his written statement has not disputed the ownership of the petitioner over plot No. 18 of land Sy. No. 116/D and when even according to the boundaries shown by the petitioner, the boundaries do not seem to overlapp and also taking into account the fact that the suit is for simplicitor injunction, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the said application. As such, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11