52 WP No.8516.2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8516 OF 2014 VITTHAL KUNDLIK KHEDKAR VERSUS DINKAR KISAN KHEDKAR AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ajinkya A. Joshi h/f Mr. S. V. Natu Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S. R. Nikam h/f Mr. Y. V. Kakade *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 19th August, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 21.03.2014 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shevgaon below Exhibit 63 in Regular Civil Suit No. 328 of 2011, rejecting the application presented by the petitioner (original defendant), seeking the appointment of a Court Commissioner. 2. The respondents no. 1 to 5 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 328 of 2011 against the petitioner seeking a declaration of ownership and a perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land situated at Gat No. 268 in village Thakur Pimpalgaon, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. The plaintiffs asserted the 2026:BHC-AUG:37425 52 WP No.8516.2014 -2- inherited title and active possession over the suit land, stating that boundaries were fixed through a measurement map prepared by the office of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records (T.I.L.R.) on 07.05.2011. The petitioner-defendant resisted the suit by presenting a written statement and a counter-claim, contending ownership and possession vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.1968, while alleging errors in the revenue records. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner presented an application at Exhibit 63 for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure and inspect the fields. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court committed an error while dismissing the application. Since the petitioner had preferred a counter-claim seeking a declaration of ownership over respective land portions, was entitled to an independent measurement of Gat Nos. 265 and 267. The counsel further urged that the previous T.I.L.R. report on record failed to account. As such, prayed to allow the petition. 4. Upon considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, the controversy revolves around the title, boundaries and possession of agricultural plots those have already 52 WP No.8516.2014 -3- been visited and measured by the Revenue Authority i.e. the T.I.L.R.. It is for the petitioner to prove the same through oral and documentary evidence during the course of trial. 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that the mechanism of appointing a Court Commissioner cannot be utilized by a litigating party to gather evidence or to build up its case where evidence is accessible. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly observed that allowing such an application for recording temporary crop conditions would amount to collecting evidence on behalf of the defendant which is impermissible. 6. In view of the above, the order under challenge does not suffer from any error or illegality. 7. Consequently, the petition sans merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi