919-WP-3810-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 919 WRIT PETITION NO. 3810 OF 2023 Shoba Suresh Kadlag VERSUS Aruna Jagannath Kadlag And Others ….. Mr. Dixit Satyajeet S, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. U. A. Sayyad h/f Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for Respondent No.10 Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for Respondent No.8 ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 08.01.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner below Exhibit – 34 in R.C.S. No.316/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the Original Plaintiffs / Respondents for appointment of Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit is for simpliciter injunction and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought not to have entertained the Application for appointment of a Court Commissioner at such preliminary stage. He submits that along immediately after the filing of suit, within a short span of time, the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was moved, even before commencement of trial and before any evidence was led. He 1 2026:BHC-AUG:780 919-WP-3810-2023.odt further submits that the learned Trial Court committed an apparent error, contrary to the settled principles governing appointment of a Court Commissioner that appointment is generally required only after the parties have led the evidence. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents / Original Plaintiffs supports the impugned order and invited my attention to the written statement filed by Original Defendant No.1 / Petitioner, contending that in the written statement itself, there is a specific averment made therein that Original Defendant No.1 / Petitioner has no objection for the appointment of a Court Commissioner. He, therefore, submits that in view of such admission, there was no necessity to wait until the parties have led evidence and that considering the nature of the dispute, the learned Trial Court has rightly appointed the Court Commissioner. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the written statement as well as the submission advanced by both the sides. It is an undisputed position that, when the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner was filed, the evidence had not commenced. The suit is for simpliciter injunction and at such a preliminary stage, the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner ought not to have been entertained. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present petition by setting aside the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Trial Court. 6. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner below Exhibit – 34 in R.C.S. No.316/2019 is quashed and set aside. 2 919-WP-3810-2023.odt 7. However, liberty is granted to the Respondents to file a fresh application for appointment of a Court Commissioner after the parties lead the evidence. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/January-2026 3