dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7807 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7807 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7807 OF 2008 ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7808 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7808 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7808 OF 2008 Shri Sudhaskar S. Mukane & ors. Petitioners Vs. Sou. Sindhubai @ Sangita Vasant Niphade Respondent. Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Mr.Prafulla B. Shah for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th December 2008. : 18th December 2008. : 18th December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioners have challenged the common order dated 13.10.2008 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff to police aid has been granted and his application for appointment of Commissioner was rejected. The grant of police aid, in the facts and circumstances, just cannot be said to be perverse as it was passed subject to the material and apprehension as made out in the litigation between the parties. There are more than 12 suits pending with regard to different houses which are on common land in question. The apprehension therefore so recorded just cannot be overlooked and, therefore, there is no perversity in granting the police aid. No interference is necessary on this count. ( 2 ) 2. With regard to the appointment of Commissioner, it is very clear that prior to this, after hearing both the parties and considering the land and situation in question, the Appellate Court has passed an order and granted injunction. Having once granted injunction based upon the material available, there is no question of now appointment of commissioner to measure the said land again and/or have inspection of the said land/property again. This would amount to interference with the injunction order already granted by the Appellate Court based upon the material available on record including the Commissioner’s report and map on the record. 3. At this stage, therefore, the operative part which is reproduced below, in my view, need no interference and also there is no question of granting application for appointment of commissioner as prayed in the present matters. "1. Application Ex.33 allowed and Ex.42 is rejected. 2. That the police aid granted to perform the agricultural operations if necessary, the ( 3 ) cost for the same be borned by plaintiff by remitting requisite fee to the authority, by keeping in view as no violation or exceeds or injunction order by Hon’ble Appellate Court in any manner." 4. In view of above, both these petitions are dismissed accordingly. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)