1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 7th July, 2009 passed by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune below Exhibit 35 in Regular Civil Suit No. 513 of 2007, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present Petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Petition are as under:

The Petitioner-Plaintiff has filed the Suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.513 of 2007, for declaration and restoration of possession after removing the encroachment of the Respondent-Defendant. The Plaintiff in the plaint has contended that the suit land is owned by the Plaintiff from the period of his ancestors; that the said land has been given City Survey No.1894; that the Plaintiff has constructed two rooms on the said land and the room admeasuring 20 ft. x 10 ft. on the northern side was given to the Respondent-Defendant for residing therein for certain time without any consideration. It is contended that though the Defendant had assured the Plaintiff that after making alternate arrangement he will return the said room, he was refusing to do so for last 10 to 12 years. In this premise, the Plaintiff has prayed for the reliefs as claimed hereinabove. The Suit of the Plaintiff is resisted by the Defendant. It has been contended by the Defendant that the lands bearing Survey No.315B and Survey No.317B/1 were given by the British Government in the year 1911 to the persons belonging to Vaidu Nomadic Tribe. It was contended that for the sake of convenience, the land was given in the name of ancestors Shankar Laxman Pawar and as such the name of said Shankar Laxman Pawar and his brothers and sisters were recorded in the 7/12 Extract. The contention of the Plaintiff, that he was the owner of the land was denied by the Defendant. It is the contention of the Defendant that the house in which he is residing has been owned by him since the period of his ancestors. It is the contention of the Defendant that in the records, the said house has been registered as City Survey No.1895. The Defendant has also filed a counter claim for a declaration that the property, as stated in the counter claim, was the property in possession of the Defendant, from the period of his ancestors. A declaration was prayed in the counter claim that the Plaintiff had no relation with the house on which the Defendant was residing and further for an injunction restraining the Plaintiff from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Defendant.

4. During the pendency of the Suit, two applications came to be filed for temporary injunction; one by the Plaintiff and the other by the original Defendant. The application of the Plaintiff was rejected and that of the Defendant was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, an Appeal was carried before the learned District Judge. The same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1440 of 2009. The said Petition was disposed of by the order dated 6th March, 2009. Thereafter, the application below Exhibit 35 in Regular Civil Suit No.513 of 2007 came to be filed for appointment of the City Survey Officer, Pune as “Court Commissioner”. The same was rejected and hence the present Petition.

5. Mr. Godbole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that the issue involved in the present Petition is as to whether the construction of the Respondent-Defendant is on City Survey No.1894 or City Survey No.1895. The appointment of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records as a “Court Commissioner” was necessary in as much as the report of the said Commissioner would facilitate the Court for finding out an actual position. Mr. Godbole submitted that the issue involved in the present Petition is the issue involved in various matters and, therefore, has taken me through various pronouncements on the issue. The learned Counsel has relied o