: 1 : 8036-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8036 OF 2011 Nivrutti Parsu Kanse .. Petitioner v/s. Popat Dnyandeo Jadhav .. Respondent ......... Mr. Prashant S. Bhavake with N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in R.C. Suit No.159 of 2011 filed in the Court of learned 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad. The petitioner’s application for interim relief came to be rejected by learned 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad by order dated 25th March, 2011. Being aggrieved by said order dated 25th March, 2011 petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.45 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge-1, Karad. In the course of hearing of the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application below Exh.8 seeking appointment of a Commissioner to go at site and carry out : 2 : 8036-11-wp=.sxw measurement. The said application has been rejected by order dated 14th September, 2011. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Commissioner will visit the site and give his report to the Court for the purposes of enabling the petitioner to show as to who is in actual possession at site. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Court has ample powers in accordance with the provisions of law and that the learned District Judge-1,Karad declined to exercise those powers though they were conferred on him. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon following judgments. i. Yeshwant Bhaduji Ghuse Vs. Vithobaji Laxman Ladekar, 2010 (2) All MR 694. ii. Girish Vasantrao Bhoyar & Anr. Vs. Nimbaji Warluji Bambal, 2009 (4) All MR 761. iii. Raj Narain Rai & Ors. Vs. Sadhu Rai & Ors. AIR 1995 Allahabad 351. iv. Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi Vs. Dinkar Yashwant Patil, 2004(1) Mh.L.J. P-138. : 3 : 8036-11-wp=.sxw 4. I have perused the said judgments and I have perused the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavake for petitioner submitted that on the strength of judgments cited by him his petition should be granted. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession in respect of the land set out in the plaint. The petitioner wants that the respondent should not interfere with the petitioner’s possession and carry out construction. If this is the case, it is necessary for the petitioner to make out a case that he is in possession on the basis of documents held by him. In my view, the learned District Judge-1, Karad rightly arrived at conclusion that in this case, the appointment of Commissioner is not required. Learned District Judge-1, Karad has rightly observed that petitioner can rely upon the City Survey map and other Government record to support his stand. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)