JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. M.J. Patil for the contesting respondent No. 9 waives service. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff impugning the order passed by the trial Court rejecting his application (Exhibit 110) for appointment of Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for ascertaining the alleged change in the structure of the shed erected on a suit property as described in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that it is a suit for general partition. The respondent No. 9 who is defendant No. 9 has illegally purchased the suit property from some of the defendants. The petitioner had succeeded in obtaining an order of temporary injunction on her applications (Exhibit 6 and 57) whereby, inter-alia the respondent No. 9 was restrained from changing or altering the condition of the structure standing on the suit property. In spite of such a direction, respondent No. 9 was indulged in breach of injunction. In order to bring that fact on r