JUDGMENT P. C. :- By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 23rd Feb., 2007 vide which the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner came to be rejected. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in Sr. No. 213 and from obstructing them from using the way between Sr. No. 212 and 213. In the said suit on an earlier occasion also, an application for appointment of Court Commissioner came to be filed and the same was rejected. Thereafter, after the closure of evidence of the plaintiff and after the thirteen witness were examined, the present application came to be filed. The same is rejected hence the present petition. 3. Shri Chandak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the only dispute is regarding the existence of the road. He submits that since there is a dispute regarding the map, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to appoint Court Commissioner. 4. He refers to the observation of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ramchandra Bhikaji Jagtap vs. Dudharam Langruji Padvekar dead through L.Rs Bulkabai Padvekar and others, 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 278 which reads thus: "In any case, in which there is a dispute about encroachment or dimension of a site, the first essential is to get an agreed map and if the parties cannot agree on one, a Commissioner must be appointed to prepare the same and / or subsequent reference in the pleadings or judgment to place the mark on a map should be referred to this map which must be attached to the decree and signed by the Judge." 5. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the contrary submits that the application filed by the present petitioner was in the nature of collecting evidence and as such the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 6. He relies on the judgment of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay Namdo Khandare vs. Sahebrao Kachru Khandare and others, 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 959 = 2001 (1) ALL MR 653. 7. 6. He relies on the judgment of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay Namdo Khandare vs. Sahebrao Kachru Khandare and others, 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 959 = 2001 (1) ALL MR 653. 7. The provision of Order 26 Rule 9 reads thus: "In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such Commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules." From perusal of the said Rule it would thus be clear that the provisions are directory in nature. Only when the trial Court finds a local investigation necessary for the purpose of deciding the matter in dispute, it may exercise the discretion for appointment of Court Commissioner. It would also be seen that when the Court does not find it necessary, there is nothing which mandates the Court to appoint Court Commissioner. 8. Insofar as the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramchandra vs. Dudharam (cited supra) is concerned, it is only having a persuasive value on this Court. 9. In the present case it could be seen that there are two conflicting judgments rendered by the two Single Judges of this Court. I am of the considered view that the Judgment rendered by the Single Judge in the case of Ramchandra vs. Dudharam (cited supra) does not lay the correct proposition, as such I am not inclined to follow the same. On the contrary, I am of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay Namdo Khandare vs. Sahebrao Kachru Khandare and others, 2001(2) Mh.LJ. 959 = 2001 (1) ALL MR 653 is more correct view and therefore I am inclined to follow the same. 10. In the result the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.