1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.198 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6442 OF 2009 1) Smt. Surekha Satish Kale, 2) Niranjan Satish Kale, Both R/o- Near Civil Court, Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1) Ravindranath Kashinath Bhosale, R/o- "Matruchhaya", Near Civil Court, Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar, 2) The State of Maharashtra, Through the District Collector, Ahmednagar, 3) The Tahsildar, Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar, 4) The Village Panchayat, Karjat, Through its Village Development Officer, Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar, 5) Smt. Sulochana w/o Pandurang Kale, R/o-Near Civil Court, Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar, 6) Sow. Pooja w/o Ashok Tekale, (deleted), 2 7) Ku. Amrata Satish Kale, R/o-Near Civil Court, Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.Mukul Kulkarni Advocate for Appellants. Shri.P.B. Rakhunde Advocate h/f. Shri. S.B. Bhapkar Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that once the plaintiff examined T.I.L.R. to prove map in support of his evidence, second application for appointment of T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner was not called for and was not maintainable. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6442 of 2009, by order 3 dated 11th February, 2010, allowed the Petition of the Respondent Plaintiff by directing the Civil Court to allow the application by passing appropriate orders and call for report of T.I.L.R. without asking the T.I.L.R. to express opinion about encroachment and only to report the fact situation noticed at the spot. The learned Single Judge further directed the Civil Court to impose certain conditions on T.I.L.R. with directions to allow the defendant to cross examine the T.I.L.R. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that this Order has been complied with. The T.I.L.R. submitted report, he was examined by the plaintiff and to his instructions, the T.I.L.R. was even cross examined by the Appellant- defendant. Learned counsel Shri. Kulkarni appearing for the Appellant submits that, to his instructions, statement made by the counsel for the Respondent No.1 is not fully correct. 4. Even otherwise, we find that the learned 4 Single Judge has provided opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the T.I.L.R. The T.I.L.R. was appointed to work as Court Commissioner and even if he was earlier examined by the plaintiff to prove his map, his functioning as a Court Commissioner would not prejudice the defendant as the defendant has been given full opportunity to cross examine the T.I.L.R. We do not find any merits in the Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT10/lpa198.10