1 wp 6775.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6775 OF 2011 Narayan Barku Kanade .. Petitioner Versus Sukhdeo Laxman Kanade and others .. Respondents Shri P. S. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs who had filed the suit for possession on the allegations that the defendants had encroached their area. Earlier measurement was done in the year 1985. On the basis of the same the suit was filed. Thereafter, the Court appointed T. I. L. R. as the Court Commissioner to measure land gat No. 78 and 83. The land was measured, T. I. L. R. submitted his report and T. I. L. R. is also examined by the respondents and cross examined by the petitioner in the year 2000. Thereafter the 2 wp 6775.11 arguments have been advanced by the respective parties. The petitioner has filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner again i. e. T. I. L. R. The same is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of the measurement conducted by the T. I. L. R. (Court Commissioner) was never served on the petitioner. Even in the cross examination of the T. I. L. R. this fact has come on record. As such, measurement cannot be relied upon. In view of the same the petitioner was justified in filing an application for appointment of Court Commissioner i. e. T. I. L. R. afresh. The same would facilitate in adjudicating the matter in controversy. 3. Shri Patnoorker, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the notices were issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was present at the time of measurement. The petitioner is guilty of delay and laches and the Court has rightly rejected the application. 4. The Trial Court while rejecting the application has observed that it is for the plaintiff to prove the encroachment and 3 wp 6775.11 to prove the report of the T. I. L. R. Whatsoever grounds are raised by the petitioner are nothing but arguments in respect of report of the Court Commissioner and on that premise has rejected the application. If a party satisfies the Court that the report of the Court Commissioner cannot be relied for various anomalies, then it is for the Court to consider the evidentiary value of the said report. The purpose for which the appointment of Court Commissioner is sought cannot be considered for appointment of Court Commissioner. The Court would consider the evidentiary value of the report submitted by the T. I. L. R. on its own merits. Moreover, the T. I. L. R. had submitted his report and has adduced his evidence in the year 2000. The application for appointment of a fresh T. I. L. R. is filed in the year 2011, when the parties have adduced their evidence and advanced their arguments. In view of the above conspectus no error has been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11