Bombay High Court

RAGHUNATH TUKARAM PTIL AND ANR.versusRAMCHANDRA DNYANU PATIL (DAULU)

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that there was no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking the appointment of a commissioner for local inspection under Order VI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the pre‑trial stage. They argued that such appointment was essential given the facts. The Court noted that the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 had been made before any evidence was taken. Relying on the High Court’s earlier decision in Sarjerao Nathu Bangar v. Namdev Keru Bangar (Writ Petition No. 13441 of 2019), the Court found no illegality in the impugned order and declined to interfere. The petition was dismissed, with a clarification that the petitioners may still seek a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 at the post‑trial stage, and any fresh application will be decided on its own merits.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of a commissioner for local inspection under Order VI Rule 9 at the pre‑trial stage is permissible.
Whether the impugned order is illegal or liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioners may resort to Order XXVI Rule 9 at the post‑trial stage.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order VI Rule 9, Order XXVI Rule 9

Subjects

Writ petition
Commissioner appointment
Order VI Rule 9
Order XXVI Rule 9
Code of Civil Procedure
Pre‑trial
Post‑trial

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8691




                                          1                         43.WP-4336-2026.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 OF 2026

                           Raghunath Tukaram Ptil and another      ...Petitioners

                                                VERSUS

                           Ramchandra Dnyanu Patil (Daulu)         ...Respondent

                    Shri Nikhil N. Pawar, Advocate a/w Shri Rajdeep Shitole,
                    Advocate for the Petitioners.

                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                       DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                    FINAL ORDER :


                    .      The petitioners have resorted to Order VI Rule 9 of the
                    Code of Civil Procedure at pre-trial stage.     It is vehemently
                    contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
                    appointment of commissioner for local inspection in the given
                    facts and circumstances is extremely necessary. The concern of
                    the learned counsel cannot be doubted.


                    2.     The application U/O XXVI Rule 9 of the C. P. C. has been
                    made before adducing any evidence.


                    3.     In view of consistent view of the High Court in the case of
                    Sarjerao Nathu Bangar Vs. Namdev Keru Bangar in Writ
                    Petition No. 13441 of 2019 (Aurangabad Bench), I do not
                      2                           43.WP-4336-2026.odt

find any illegality in the impugned order.       No interference is
called for in the writ petition.       It is disposed of with a
clarification that petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to
Order XXVI Rule 9 of the C. P. C. at post trial stage as is
permissible in law. If fresh application is made that shall be
decided on its own merits without being influenced by earlier
orders.

                               [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


bsb/Sept. 26

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…