Bombay High Court
BALU NARAYAN PATILversusEKNATH TUKARAM PATIL
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- NITIN B SURYAWANSHI
Holding
An application for appointment of a Court Commissioner must be filed after the commencement of recording of evidence; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the civil judge's order that rejected his application under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure suit land. The application was made before the commencement of recording of evidence. The High Court, relying on its earlier decisions in Mahadeo Kondiba Shinde v. Nitin Sakharam Shinde and Shantaram Dattatray Kekan v. Bhausaheb Karbhari Kekan, held that such an appointment is premature if sought before evidence recording begins. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit, but allowed the petitioner to re‑file the application after evidence commences. The trial court is directed to consider any fresh application on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC can be filed before the commencement of recording of evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 26 Rule 9
Subjects
- Court Commissioner
- Order 26 CPC
- measurement of land
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- commencement of evidence
Judgment
{1} 912-WP-10421-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10421 OF 2023
Balu Narayan Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
Eknath Tukaram Patil ...Respondent
Mr. Yuvraj Gharal, Advocate for the petitioner
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : 08th JANUARY, 2026
ORDER :
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kagal below Exhibit-18 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 154 of 2018, thereby rejecting the application
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code, for appointment of Court Commissioner, for
measurement of the suit land.
2. Admittedly, in the present case, application for
appointment of Court Commissioner is filed before commencement of
recording of evidence.
3. In Mahadeo Kondiba Shinde Vs. Nitin Sakharam Shinde
Bhagyawant Punde
{2} 912-WP-10421-2023
(2022) 2 ALL MR 593 (Bom), learned Single Judge of this Court has
held that appointment of Court Commissioner prior to the
commencement of evidence of suit is premature and hence, set aside
the said appointment. Similar view is taken by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Shantaram Dattatray Kekan and Others Vs.
Bhausaheb Karbhari Kekan and Another (Writ Petition No. 14046 of
2021).
4. In view of above, this Court has consistently taken a view
that application for appointment of Court Commissioner has to be filed
after commencement of recording of evidence. In that view of the
matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition under
extraordinary writ jurisdiction and the writ petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed.
5. Petitioner is at liberty to file application seeking
appointment of Court Commissioner after commencement of recording
of evidence. If such application is filed, Trial Court to consider the
same on its own merits, without being influenced by the order
impugned in the present writ petition.
(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…