kbp 1 7466-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7466 OF 2009 Shridhar Krishnaram Pophale ..Petitioners Vs. Uttam Sadashiv Pati and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.R.M.Haridas i/b.Mr.P.N.Joshi, for petitioners. ....... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 7 th OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] The petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit for removal of encroachment has challenged an order passed by the trial court by which a Survey Officer has been appointed as the Court Commissioner to make a survey and to draw a map. The said order has been passed in exercise of power under Rule 9 of the Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier application made by the plaintiff for the identical relief has been rejected by a reasoned order, and therefore, a fresh application was not maintainable. 3] The impugned order is purely interlocutory. The same can be subjected to challenge in an appeal which may be preferred by the petitioner for challenging the decree passed in the suit, if the same be adverse to the petitioner. The power exercised by the court is under Rule 9 Order XXVI of the said Code of 1908. The report of the Court Commissioner is never final in the kbp 2 7466-09.sxw sense that the parties can file objections to the report and can cross-examine for Commissioner. As stated earlier in the present case, the suit is for removal of encroachment and the dispute between the parties essentially appears to a dispute over the boundary between the adjoining properties. 4] Hence, subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )