1 WP 6476.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6476 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. P.K.Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :29/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for possession of the encroached area. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit. The petitioner preferred Appeal. During the pendency of the Appeal, the petitioner moved an application for appointment of T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner to measure the said land. The District Court passed Order that the said application could be considered at the time of final arguments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. P.K.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact when the application was made by the petitioner, the Court should have decided the said application as if the T.I.L.R. is required to be appointed, then in such circumstances, the same can be appointed and the time would be saved. The learned 2 WP 6476.2011 counsel further contends that both the surveyors, who had measured the land, had shown the encroachment, but the same was disbelieved only on the ground that one of the surveyors had shown the area in triangular shape whereas the other surveyor has not shown the same in that fashion. The District Court has not rejected the application of the petitioner. It has stated that the said application would be in the nature of additional evidence within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if such an application is made, it has to be considered at the time of final hearing as the relevancy also would be required to be considered. 3. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan V/s T.N. Sahani and others reported in 2001 ( 10 ) SCC – 619 and in the case of Mallyalam Plantation Ltd. V/s State of Kerala and another reported in 2011 AIR SCW – 264 has laid down that the application for additional evidence has to be considered at the time of deciding the Appeal itself. 4. In view of the above, the District Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6476.2011 3 WP 6476.2011