Bombay High Court
ANIRUDHA SITARAM SINGHversusGEETA NIWAS CO.OP. HSG. SOC.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A civil court cannot aid a party in collecting evidence by appointing a Court Commissioner, and the appellate court's rejection of the application was correct.
Summary
The petitioner, Anirudha Sitaram Singh, challenged a judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes that rejected his application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to inspect, measure, sketch, and photograph the premises in a tenancy dispute. He argued that such investigation was necessary to determine the extent of the premises for his claim of lawful tenancy. The High Court held that the request was essentially for the collection of evidence, which a civil court cannot facilitate under Order IX Rule 26 of the CPC, and that no necessity for a local investigation was shown. Consequently, the Court found no error in the appellate court’s decision and dismissed the writ petition. The petition was therefore dismissed, leaving the original order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil court may appoint a Court Commissioner for the purpose of collecting evidence under Order IX Rule 26 of the CPC.
- Whether the petitioner established a necessity for local investigation to decide the tenancy dispute.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order IX Rule 26, Order XXVI Rule 9
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- tenancy
- court commissioner
- evidence collection
- CPC
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- appeal
- Small Causes Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36776
Diksha Rane 3 WP 11060 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11060/2026
ANIRUDHA SITARAM SINGH ..PETITIONER
VS
GEETA NIWAS CO.OP. HSG. SOC. ..RESPONDENT
Adv. Amogh Singh a/w. Adv. Vijay Thakur, Adv. Rutuparn
Umesh Deo i/b. Thakur & Associates for petitioner.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 20 th
July, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at
Bombay below Exhibit-11 in Appeal No.46 of 2026, whereby the
petitioner's Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 Code of Civil
Procedure, seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for local
investigation, measurement, preparation of a sketch plan and
photography of the suit premises was rejected.
2. The petitioner instituted R.A.D. Suit No. 1809 of 2009
before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay seeking, inter alia, a
declaration of lawful tenancy in respect of the suit premises at Singh
House, Mahim, Mumbai. By judgment and order dated 22 nd January,
2026. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding, inter alia, he failed
Page 1 of 3
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 3 WP 11060 2026.docx
to produce satisfactory material to establish his tenancy to the area of
1000 sq.ft. The petitioner preferred Appeal No. 46 of 2026. During
the pendency of the Appeal, he filed Exhibit-11 under Order XXVI
Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Court
Commissioner/Architect to inspect and measure the premises,
prepare a sketch plan, take photographs and submit a report,
particularly in view of the finding regarding the extent of the
premises. The Appellate Bench, by judgment and order dated 20 th
July, 2026, rejected the application, holding that the dispute
primarily concerned the petitioner's status as a tenant and that no
case for local investigation was made out. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. The application for appointment of Court Commissioner is
rejected by holding that the petitioner failed to establish that such
investigation was necessary for deciding the controversy in the
Appeal. The Court, therefore found the application devoid of merit
and rejected it.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The application for appointment of Court Commissioner is
in the nature of collection of evidence for the applicant. The Civil
Court would not aid a party in collecting evidence under Order IX
Rule 26. No case is made out by the applicant to carry out local
Page 2 of 3
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 3 WP 11060 2026.docx
inspection. I find no error in the judgment of the Appellate Court as a
party cannot seek Court’s aid in collecting evidence under Order IX
Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere with
the judgment and order dated 20 th July, 2026, passed by the
Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay below
Exhibit-11 in Appeal No.46 of 2026.
7. The present writ petition stands dismissed.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 3 of 3
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2026 12:14:37
Checking your session…