GOVIND TUKARAM GANGATIRE THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY DIGAMBAR VISHWANATH GANGATIREversusRAMPRASAD MAROTIRAO GANGATIRE

2026:BHC-AUG:6371
             Dilwale                                           1                    74-wp-15077-19.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  74 WRIT PETITION NO. 15077 OF 2019

                Govind Tukaram Gangatire Through Power Of Attorney Digambar
                                       Vishwanath Gangatire
                                               VERSUS
                                  Ramprasad Marotirao Gangatire
                                                  ...
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Charuta Sunil
             Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramrao G. Nirmal h/f Mr. S. S.
             Gangakhedkar
                                                  ...

                                       CORAM           : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE            : 12.02.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.        The learned counsel for the respective parties.

             2.        On 16th December 2019, the following order is passed:-

                    1. The Petitioner, original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 19/2015 is
                    aggrieved by the order dated 05/08/2019 passed by the Trial Court, by
                    which, application Exhibit 29, seeking appointment of a court commissioner,
                    has been allowed even before commencing the recording of oral evidence.
                    2. This Court has consistently held that a court commissioner should
                    normally be appointed after the recording of oral evidence is concluded.
                    Some of such orders / judgments passed by this Court are as under :-

                         (1) Syed Mushtaque Ahmad Syed Ismail and others Vs. Syed Ashique
                         Ali Khan Hatdar [2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 334 = 2012 (2) Bom. C.R. 790],
                         (2) Nalubai Shinde and others Vs. Gopinath Shinde [2011(2)
                         Mh.L.J.991],
                         (3) Dnyandeo Vithal Salke and others vs. Dagdu Kadar Inamdar, 2017
                         (3) Mh.L.J. 314.
                         (4) Chandrakant Kashinath Dike and others vs. Smt.Satyabhama
                         Vishwanath Dike and another, Writ Petition No.8877/2013
                         (Aurangabad Bench) decided on 17.01.2014.
                         (5) Dhondiba Bapu Zaware vs. Santosh Paraji Zaware and others,
                         Writ Petition No.4756/2014 (Aurangabad Bench) decided on
                         08.12.2014.
                         (6) Dipak Laxman Gadekar and anr. Vs. Trimbak Ravji Shirsath, Writ
                         Petition No. 11593/2015 (Aurangabad Bench), decided on
                         23/08/2017,
Dilwale                                           2                      74-wp-15077-19.odt

            (7) Mahadeo s/o Vaijanath Bembalge Vs. Chandrakala w/o Ramesh
            Athane, Writ Petition No.832/2018 (Aurangabad Bench), decided on
            04/06/2018,
            (8) Dhondiram Nivrutti Pawar through L.Rs. Vs. Laxman Khashaba
            Pawar and others, Writ Petition No. 1196/2017, (Bombay Bench),
            decided on 23/01/2018,
            (9) Sanjay Balasaheb Khandare Vs. Vivek Surinder Mahajan and
            another, Writ Petition No.4958/2018,(Aurangabad Bench), decided
            on 29/01/2018.
            (10) Bhika Mahadu Katkar and another Vs. Arjun Bhimraj Ghode, WP
            No.1890/2019 (Aurangabad Bench) decided on 09/07/2019.
            (11) Sitaram Suklal Patil and another Vs. Vasudeo Suklal Patil, WP
            No.9626/2016 (Aurangabad Bench), decided on 31/07/2017.
            (12) Sarjerao Nathu Bangar and others Vs. Namdeo Keru Bangar and
            others, WP No.13441/2019 (Aurangabad Bench), decided on
            07/11/2019.

     3. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 14/02/2020. Until further
     orders, the impugned order dated 05/08/2019 shall stand stayed. In the
     event, the court commissioner has acted upon the impugned order, his report
     shall be preserved by the Trial Court in a sealed envelope and shall not be
     divulged to any
     of the parties.
     4. Copy of the petition paper book shall be supplied for issuance of notice, on
     or before 20/12/2019, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed
     without reference to the Court on 21/12/2019.



3.        In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the oral evidence has not yet commenced. Hence, the present

petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to open

the Court Commissioner’s report after the parties have led their evidence.

4.        In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.




                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE