Anil Digambar Gaikwad And ORS. v. Mahanda Vitthal Ronge

16-wp-374-2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.374 OF 2018 Anil Digambar Gaikwad and Ors.

...Petitioners

vs.

Mahanda Vitthal Ronge

...Respondent

Mr. N.N. Pawar, for the Petitioners Mr. A.A. Joshi, for the Respondent CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE :

MARCH 20, 2019 P.C.:

.

Heard Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2.

The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 17th July, 2017 made by the trial Court rejecting the Petitioners' application for appointment of the Court Commissioner. 3.

Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that there is no bar to the Appeal Court appointing the Court Commissioner in order to ascertain the true and correct facts at loco. He therefore submits that the failure on the part of the Appeal Court appointing the Court Commissioner can not amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction.

4.

Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent defends Vishal Parekar 1/2

16-wp-374-2018.doc the impugned order on the basis of reasoning reflected therein. 5.

From the perusal of the Petitioners' application seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner, it is apparent that the Petitioners' claims to collect evidence in the matter. The Court Commissioner cannot be appointed for the parties to collect evidence in their favour. Besides, it is pertinent to refer the circumstance that the Petitioner did not seek for appointment of Court Commissioner before the trail Court.

6.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

7.

This Petition is therefore dismissed.

8.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(M. S. SONAK, J.) Vishal Parekar 2/2