1 WP No.2515/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2515 of 2011 Bharat Dadu Bansode ... Petitioner versus Bashir Aminuddin Kureshi ... Respondents ... Mr.S.A. Rajeshirke for the petitioner. Ms for the respondents CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 7th June 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 21 February 2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Atpadi allowing the application of the respondent (defendant) for appointment of a Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR) as the Court Commissioner for measurement of gat No.2655. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a part of Gat No. 2655 to the extent of 2H and 0.2 R out of the total area of 10 H and 51R area, having purchased the same from the brother of the 2 WP No.2515/11 respondent. He claimed a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his possession of the portion purchased by him. There appears to be a dispute as to the possession as also the description and location of the property purchased. In these circumstances, the respondent applied for appointment of a Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR) as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the land. The Court allowed the application. That order is challenged in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence. In support, he referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in Sanjay Namdeo Kandhare Vs. Sahebrao s/o Kachru Kandhare & ors., 2001(1) All.M.R. 653 and another decision of this court dated 24 January 2008 in Writ Petition no.4143 of 2007. In my view, the decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent is not trying to collect the evidence and only wants the measurement of the property to identify the suit property. This is all the more necessary in view of the fact that suit property is only a small part of entire gat no.2655 and the length and breadth of the suit property purchased by the petitioner is not mentioned in the plaint. The Court Commissioner is appointed for the purpose of identifying the suit property. 5. It was then urged that the trial court erred in appointing the Court Commissioner for measurement of the entire gat No.2655. Since the suit property is a part of Gat no.2655 and ordinarily boundary marks are fixed only for an entire gat, in my view, it 3 WP No.2515/11 would be necessary to measure the entire gat no.2655 and its sub- division, if any, to identify the suit property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that respondent has sold out his property and therefore had no right to file an application for injunction. No such averment is found in the plaint. The contention therefore cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. 7. The petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)