14-wp-1886-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2017 Sau. Pushpa Anil Bansode … Petitioner vs. Sau Rekha Sanjay Katare and Ors … Respondents Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari i/b. P.N. Joshi for Petitioner Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Aniket Kanawade a/w. Mr. Aryan Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 24th MARCH 2026 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application for appointment of the Court Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has proceeded and it is at the stage of recording evidence. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order which in no manner affects the rights of the parties.. 2. Normally, court should be very slow in interfering with such an interlocutory order in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) the impugned order can Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.03.25 14:53:40 +0530 14-wp-1886-2017.doc always be challenged in an appeal against the decree which may be passed in the suit, in the event the decree is adverse to the petitioner. 3. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed while keeping rights and contentions of the parties in the suit open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2