[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2778 OF 2007 SHRI MUKINDA LAXMAN JADHAV AND ORS... PETITIONERS. VS. SHRI SARJIRAO DADU JADHAV AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. MR. R.V.BANSODE FOR THE PETITIONERS. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.A.SAYED, J. A.A.SAYED, J. A.A.SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : April 22, 2008. : April 22, 2008. : April 22, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The suit in question is part heard before the Trial Court. Pending the suit, the petitioner has carried out private measurement of the suit land through a retired T.I.L.R. Notice has been issued through Advocate for the petitioner/ plaintiff to the respondents/defendants to remain present at the time of measurement. 3. The application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence so as to have the notice of the Advocate marked as Exhibit was [2] rejected by the Trial Court. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because of the rejection of his application, the petitioner would not be able to prove the notice issued by the Advocate for the petitioner to the respondents regarding measurement. 4. I have gone through the impugned order and perused the material on record. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the Advocate has no locus standi to issue notice regarding measurement of the land and that the notice ought to have been issued by the surveyor and that it would not be a material evidence for proving the measurement of the premises in question. I find no reason to differ as the relevancy of the Advocate’s notice is questionable and the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in coming to the conclusion that the notice of the Advocate is not material evidence for proving measurement of the suit land. Besides, the matter is admittedly part heard before the Trial Court and this exercise by the petitioners is rather belated. 5. In my view the discretion exercised by the Trial Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be said to be perverse or patently erroneous and the impugned order does not call for any interference. No case is made out to exercise ‘extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article [3] 227 of the Constitution so as to set aside the impugned Order. 5. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. ..... [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, J.] J.] J.]