Ravikiran Mahadev Kadam v. Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao Nimbalkar And ORS.

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1180 OF 2016 Ravikiran Mahadev Kadam ..

Petitioner Vs.

Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao Nimbalkar and ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ashok M.Misal, for the Petitioner.

Mr.Prasad P.Kulkarni, for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE :16th SEPTEMBER 2019 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

2.

The petitioner is the original plaintif. The plaintif fled Suit for measurement of the Suit land through T.I.L.R. The Suit is also fled for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintif over the suit property. It is 1/3

the contention of the plaintif that he had purchased the suit property by sale deeds dated 26/11/1998 and 11/08/2000. There is dispute about the boundaries. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Suit is for fiation of boundaries and for perpetual injunction. He therefore submitted that it was necessary to appoint Court Commissioner to submit a report. By application below Eihibit 8, petitioner applied for appointment of Court Commissioner. The trial Court rejected the application Eihibit 8 by order dated 30/12/2013. The trial Court observed that though there is boundary dispute but directions of the purchased property of the plaintif are not fied. According to the trial Court it is the plaintif who has to prove ownership, possession, obstructions and entitlement. The Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court as evidence of the parties is yet to be recorded. However, after evidence is recorded, on the petitioner making an application for appointment of the 2/3

Court Commissioner, if necessary, the trial to consider the same afresh on its own merits without being infuenced by observations made in the impugned order.

3.

With these observations, the Petition is rejected.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 3/3