1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1950/2011 (PANDURANG K. RAWANKAR & OTHERS VERSUS GAJANAN T. RAUT) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Chopde, counsel for the petitioners. Shri C.A. Joshi, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 19.03.2011 allowing an application filed by the respondent for appointment of Court Commissioner. The plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit for a declaration that they had a right of way through the field of the defendant and the defendant should be permanently restrained from preventing the petitioners from using the way. The parties tendered the evidence and at that juncture, an application was filed by the respondent-defendant for permission to appoint a Court Commissioner for submitting a report, whether there was any alternate way available to the plaintiffs to approach their field. In the facts of the case, according to the respondent, it was necessary to appoint the Court Commissioner. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court on 19.03.2011 allowing the application filed by the respondent for appointment of Court 2 Commissioner. The Court appreciated the material on record to hold that it was necessary to appoint the Court Commissioner to elucidate the matter in dispute. The Court observed that the maps filed by the parties were not authenticated and both the parties had filed affidavits of adjoining field owners in support of their respective cases. According to the learned trial Court, the Commissioner’s report would surely assist the Court to arrive at a proper decision in the suit. The order appears to be just and proper and cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. 209 (Efigenio Dias & another Versus Malaquias D’costa & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE