1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2011 Dattatraya Krishnath Anuse ...Petitioner Versus Sunil Anna Bansode & Another ...Respondents Mr. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 18th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. The Regular Civil Suit No.113 of 2002 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mohol, against the petitioner came to be decreed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Civil Appeal No.73 of 2008 in the District Court at Solapur. Before the learned District Judge, the petitioner filed application below Exhibit 7 praying that the Commissioner be appointed to visit the suit site and give report. That application has been rejected by the learned Adhoc District Judge-3, 2 Solapur by order dated 2.5.2008. 2. This order dated 2.5.2008 is challenged in this petition. The proposition is advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that even at the stage of hearing of the appeal the Commissioner can be appointed. That proposition is required to be accepted. Only question is whether the impugned order dated 2.5.2008 is wrong. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. The aforesaid suit was filed in the year 2002. It came to be decreed in the year 2008. During the course of 6 years the petitioner never thought of applying for appointment of Commissioner while defending the suit. The application is filed only at the stage of appeal. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that she could not get opportunity to defend the suit. It was argued by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the plaintiff i.e. respondent no.1 had made application to Tahsildar placing on record certain facts being Application dated 19.4.2007. Learned Advocate for the petitioner accepted that this application is on record. If this is so, it would be open for the petitioner to point out to the court the admissions, which according to the petitioners are 3 contained in this application dated 19.4.2007. The learned Appellate Court has considered the application for appointment of Commissioner and has rightly rejected it considering facts of the case. In my view, there is no need to appoint Commissioner at the request of the petitioner. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the evidence before the trial court, the entire matter proceeded on the basis of word against word. If this is so, if learned District Judge, before whom the appeal is pending is of this view that to arrive at appropriate conclusion of appointment of Commissioner is necessary. He may, in the course of hearing of the said appeal appoint the Commissioner. Certainly, the appointment of the Commissioner at the instance of the petitioner, who has not taken steps in that behalf during the pendency of the trial cannot be entertained at the Appellate stage. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)