Dismissed¶19

Jayant Anant Mahajan and Others v. Anant Mahadav Mahajan

Bombay HC9 Feb 2026WP/14267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, neutral citation 2026:BHC-AUG:6072; WRIT PETITION NO. 14267 OF 2025, decided 09-02-2026 by S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J. (PER COURT); Jayant Anant Mahajan And Others v. Anant Mahadav Mahajan; Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code - appointment of Court Commissioner in a suit for partition and separate possession; application below Exhibit-83 in R.C.S. No. 100 of 2020 (Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jamner); order dt. 28.10.2025 challenged under Article 227 of Constitution of India; present status of suit property held irrelevant; interference declined; petition stands rejected.

What did the court decide?

In a suit for partition and separate possession, the present status of the suit property need not be brought before the Court; doing so would be an absolutely irrelevant exercise. ¶18

Jayant Anant Mahajan and Others vs Anant Mahadav… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.10.2025 of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jamner rejecting the plaintiffs' application (Exh. 83) for appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code in R.C.S. No. 100 of 2020 should be quashed and set aside.

¶13

Court's answer

In a suit for partition and separate possession, the present status of the suit property need not be brought before the Court; doing so would be an absolutely irrelevant exercise.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, a Court Commissioner can be appointed only when such appointment is necessary to adjudicate the issues involved in the suit.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Court requires the assistance of a Commissioner only to bring a particular fact on record to form an opinion on an issue to be determined in the suit, which is not the case here.ratio¶18
Looking to the nature of the relief claimed in the suit and the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court, no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit (R.C.S. No. 100 of 2020): writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dt. 28.10.2025 of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jamner, rejecting the plaintiffs' application (Exh. 83) for appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code to report on the physical status of the suit property and development made thereon. The High Court held that in a suit for partition and separate possession the present status of the suit property need not be brought before the Court and would be an absolutely irrelevant exercise; a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 can be appointed only where necessary to adjudicate the issues involved in the suit, and here the Court required no such assistance to form an opinion on any issue. Petition rejected.

¶1

10-wp-14267-2025.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:6072

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 14267 OF 2025

¶6

Jayant Anant Mahajan And Others VERSUS

¶7

Anant Mahadav Mahajan

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Patil Vinod Prakash

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : FEBRUARY 09, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1. Present petition is filed with following prayer :

¶13

“(B) This Hon'ble Court by way of writ, order or directions in the like nature be please to quash and set aside the order dt. 28.10.2025 passed by Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Jamner below Exh. 83 in R.C.S. No. 100 of 2020 and further be pleased to allow the application below Exh. 83.”

¶14

The petitioners are plaintiffs in R.C.S. No.100 of 2020 which is instituted for partition and separate possession. The petitioners filed an application below Exhibit-83 seeking appointment of Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code seeking report on physical status of suit property and development made by themselves thereon. The Trial Court after considering submissions advanced, observed that real controversy in the suit is not as to what is the current status of suit properties, hence appointment of Court Commissioner would amount to permitting collecting evidence.

¶15

10-wp-14267-2025.odt

¶16

(2)

¶17

Apparently, in suit for partition and separate possession,

¶18

rights of parties in respect of their share needs to be ascertained and decided. The plaintiffs want to bring on record development carried by them over suit property. However, for partition and deciding controversy involved in suit or decision on issues framed in suit, present status of suit property need not be brought before Court. It will be absolutely irrelevant exercise. Further, under Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, appointment of Court Commissioner can be made when such appointment is necessary to adjudicate issues involved in suit. The Court requires assistance of Commissioner to bring particular fact on record to form opinion on issue to be determined in suit, which is not a case here.

¶19

In that view of matter, particularly looking to nature of relief claimed in suit and reasoning adopted by Trial Court, no case is made out to cause interference in impugned order under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, petition stands rejected.

¶20

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶21

Mujaheed//

Jayant Anant Mahajan and Others v. Anant Mahadav Mahajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant Anant Mahajan and Others v. Anant Mahadav Mahajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashshri Balaji Karewad Ug Pandurang Dhondiba Karewad vs the Collector Latur and Another

Nitin Jalba Haibate and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajkishore Kantaprasad Modi vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sanjay Bhagwan Bachakar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yamuna Ramchandra Jagtap vs Shamrao Dagadu Rathod and Others

Mahesh Balasaheb Kate vs the State of Maharashtra and Another