JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC has been rejected. 2. The dispute between the parties resulted in appointment of Commissioner in the suit filed by the respondents, wherein the Commissioner was appointed, who gave report that the disputed way was closed. The status quo order was passed by the trial court, whereafter, it was alleged that the way was opened and application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC was filed only again a Commissioner was appointed to give the report that the way had been opened. 3. In the subsequent suit filed by the Hari Ram, Commissioner was appointed, who gave a report, which was challenged by the petitioner in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6699/2011. This Court while deciding the writ petition consolidated both the suit, one filed by Ganpat Ram and another filed by Hari Ram, and left it open for the petitioner to file objections to the Commissioner's Report. After decision of the writ petition on 24.02.2012, the objections were filed on 14.08.2013 and petitioner sought appointment of another Commissioner. 4. The trial court on coming to the conclusion that the objections were delayed and the fact that already three Commissioner Reports were on record, dismissed the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application, inasmuch as, the third report given by the Commissioner was prepared in absence of the petitioner and same is likely to be relied on and misused by the parties and, therefore the Commissioner was required to be appointed for giving a fresh appropriate report and, consequently, the order impugned deserves to be interfered with. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute that with the passing of the order dated 24.02.2012 by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6699/2011 both the suit one filed by Ganpat Ram and another filed by Hari Ram have been consolidated resulting in the Commissioner Reports produced in suit filed by the Ganpat Ram now form part of the record of in the suit filed by Hari Ram. 8. 8. The trial court has observed that the petitioner despite notice, did not appear when the Commissioner went to the site for giving his report. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the status of the way, appears to be already on record and repeated appointment of Commissioner for the said purpose cannot be said to be required for the same identical purpose and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******