This Court has consistently held
that the Court Commissioner should not be
appointed until the recording of oral
evidence is completed. Some of the orders
passed by this Court are as under :-
(1) Syed Mushtaque Ahmad Syed Ismail and
others Vs. Syed Ashique Ali Khan Hatdar [2011
(6) Mh.L.J. 334 = 2012 (2) Bom. C.R. 790],
(2) Nalubai Shinde and others Vs. Gopinath
Shinde [2011(2) Mh.L.J.991],
(3) Dnyandeo Vithal Salke and others vs.
Dagdu Kadar Inamdar, 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 314.
(4) Chandrakant Kashinath Dike and others vs.
Smt.Satyabhama Vishwanath Dike and another,
Writ Petition No.8877/2013 (Aurangabad Bench)
decided on 17.01.2014.
(5) Dhondiba Bapu Zaware vs. Santosh Paraji
Zaware and others, Writ Petition No.4756/2014
(Aurangabad Bench) decided on 08.12.2014.
(6) Dipak Laxman Gadekar and anr. Vs. Trimbak
Ravji Shirsath, Writ Petition No.
11593/2015 (Aurangabad Bench), decided on
23/08/2017,
(7) Mahadeo s/o Vaijanath Bembalge Vs.
Chandrakala w/o Ramesh Athane, Writ
Petition No. 832/2018 (Aurangabad Bench),
decided on 04/06/2018,
(8) Dhondiram Nivrutti Pawar through L.Rs.
Vs. Laxman Khashaba Pawar and others, Writ
Petition No. 1196/2017, (Bombay Bench),
decided on 23/01/2018,
(9) Sanjay Balasaheb Khandare Vs. Vivek
Surinder Mahajan and another, Writ Petition
No. 4958/2018,(Aurangabad Bench), decided
on 29/01/2018.
(10) Bhika Mahadu Katkar and another Vs. Arjun
Bhimraj Ghode, WP No.1890/2019 (Aurangabad
Bench) decided on 09/07/2019.
(11) Sitaram Suklal Patil and another Vs.
Vasudeo Suklal Patil, WP bNo.9626/2016
(Aurangabad Bench), decided on 31/07/2017.
(12) Sarjerao Nathu Bangar and others
Vs. Namdeo Keru Bangar and others, WP
No.13441/2019 (Aurangabad Bench), decided
on 07/11/2019.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14551 OF 2019
ASHOK HARDAYAL MEHTA Vs RAHUL TATYARAM MANDAGE AND OTHERS
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 12th December, 2019.
PER COURT :-
1. On 03/12/2019, this Court had passed the
following order:-
“1. None for the petitioner.
2. I have perused the impugned order
dated 05/08/2019 by which, the Trial Court
has rejected application Exhibit-51 filed by
the petitioner/original defendant No.6 in
Special Civil Suit No.53/2016. The
petitioner had sought appointment of a Court
Commissioner.
3. This Court has consistently held
that the Court Commissioner should not be
appointed until the recording of oral
evidence is completed. Some of the orders
passed by this Court are as under :-
(1) Syed Mushtaque Ahmad Syed Ismail and
others Vs. Syed Ashique Ali Khan Hatdar [2011
(6) Mh.L.J. 334 = 2012 (2) Bom. C.R. 790],
(2) Nalubai Shinde and others Vs. Gopinath
Shinde [2011(2) Mh.L.J.991],
(3) Dnyandeo Vithal Salke and others vs.
Dagdu Kadar Inamdar, 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 314.
(4) Chandrakant Kashinath Dike and others vs.
Smt.Satyabhama Vishwanath Dike and another,
Writ Petition No.8877/2013 (Aurangabad Bench)
decided on 17.01.2014.
(5) Dhondiba Bapu Zaware vs. Santosh Paraji
Zaware and others, Writ Petition No.4756/2014
(Aurangabad Bench) decided on 08.12.2014.
(6) Dipak Laxman Gadekar and anr. Vs. Trimbak
Ravji Shirsath, Writ Petition No.
11593/2015 (Aurangabad Bench), decided on
23/08/2017,
(7) Mahadeo s/o Vaijanath Bembalge Vs.
Chandrakala w/o Ramesh Athane, Writ
Petition No. 832/2018 (Aurangabad Bench),
decided on 04/06/2018,
(8) Dhondiram Nivrutti Pawar through L.Rs.
Vs. Laxman Khashaba Pawar and others, Writ
Petition No. 1196/2017, (Bombay Bench),
decided on 23/01/2018,
(9) Sanjay Balasaheb Khandare Vs. Vivek
Surinder Mahajan and another, Writ Petition
No. 4958/2018,(Aurangabad Bench), decided
on 29/01/2018.
(10) Bhika Mahadu Katkar and another Vs. Arjun
Bhimraj Ghode, WP No.1890/2019 (Aurangabad
Bench) decided on 09/07/2019.
(11) Sitaram Suklal Patil and another Vs.
Vasudeo Suklal Patil, WP bNo.9626/2016
(Aurangabad Bench), decided on 31/07/2017.
(12) Sarjerao Nathu Bangar and others
Vs. Namdeo Keru Bangar and others, WP
No.13441/2019 (Aurangabad Bench), decided
on 07/11/2019.
4. Though this petition appears to be
devoid of merits, I am adjourning it for
passing orders on dismissal on 12/12/2019.
Needless to state, there shall be no adinterim
relief.”
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has
vehemently criticized the impugned order. He draws my
attention to the grounds formulated in the memo of the
petition and submits that he had put-forth two prayers;
one for inspecting the land to find out the possession
over the said land, another prayer that the land should
be measured, boundaries be fixed and the map be
prepared.
3. It is settled law that a Court Commissioner
cannot be appointed for tracing out the possession of
the litigating parties. This amounts to collection of
evidence. So also, considering the orders passed by
this Court reproduced above, a Court Commissioner can
be appointed after the recording of oral evidence has
concluded.
4. In view of the above, I do not find that the
impugned order calls for any interference. This
petition being devoid of merits, is therefore,
dismissed.
5. Nevertheless, after the recording of oral
evidence is concluded in the matter, if an application
for appointment of a Court Commissioner is preferred by
any litigating side, the Trial Court would consider the
said application on it's own merits and without being
influenced by the order passed below Exh.51.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
No comments:
Post a Comment