1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5824 OF 2009. Dr.Mohammad Raffiq Abdul Rahim Bangali, Age 57 years, Occ.Medical practitioner, R/o Rahata Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner. Versus Dr.Nazir Tarmohmad Shaikh, Age 55 years, Occ.Medical Practitioner, R/o Rahata, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.Amol S.Gandhi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.03.2010. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order rendered by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Rahata, on application (Exh.43) in suit 2 bearing RCS No.145/2006. 2. The petitioner is original plaintiff. He filed suit for eviction alleging that the Respondent was tenant of earlier owner by name Shri Rakshe and was not residing in the suit tenement since about two (2) years and four (4) months before the suit. He asserted that the Respondent has locked the premises and kept the same unused. He further pleaded that he bonafidely required the suit tenement for personal use. 3. The Respondent (defendant) at the time of recording of evidence, during midst of the trial, filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner (Exh.43). The application was filed on the ground that the petitioner had erected a shed in eastern open space and has also constructed a latrine and bathroom, which was required to be inspected to know the fact situation. The trial Court allowed the application by the impugned order. 3 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the attempt of the Respondent was to protract the matter and seek appointment of the Court Commissioner in order to collect evidence. He submits that the trial Court failed to notice the fact that the suit tenement was locked under orders of the Court which was passed on the application of the Respondent. It appears that the suit tenement was locked on 13.7.2006. 5. The question is not whether the suit tenement is locked and, therefore, not under use of the Respondent, but the purpose of appointment of the Commissioner is to obtain information regarding juxta position of the construction raised in the open site, which is situated on eastern side of the suit tenement. Whether the petitioner has constructed a shed in the eastern open space and also has constructed a bathroom and latrine are the facts which can be brought on surface of the record if the Court Commissioner will visit the premises. There appears no malafide intention of the Respondent in seeking such appointment. The Court Commissioner may not 4 record statement of any witnesses and may not give his opinion about nature of possession, after inspection of the spot. Still, however, the fact situation regarding the nature of construction situated in the eastern open space may be reported as a result of inspection by the Court Commissioner. Considering these aspects, I do not find any perversity committed by the learned Judge while appointing the Court- Commissioner. The trial Judge is, however, directed to specify on what points the report shall be submitted by the Court Commissioner in the light of the foregoing discussion, and thereafter issue the necessary writ to the Court Commissioner. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. 6. The trial Court shall endeavour to decide the suit finally within a period of eight (8) months. 7. Interim relief vacated. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) 5 asp/office/wp582409