1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7080 OF 2011 Dharma Kanhu Pardhi ...Petitioner Versus Sadanand Narayan Shirsagar & Others ...Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 13th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioner claims that he is in possession of the land, more particularly described in the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.230 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Bhivandi. The plaint is filed to seek declaration that the petitioner is the owner by adverse possession. After filing of the suit, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Commissioner and the said application below Exhibit 58 was rejected by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhivandi, by order dated 14.6.2011. Against 2 this order dated 14.6.2011, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. The petitioner applied for appointment of Commissioner, that is to say, the Officer like TILR for the purpose of carrying out measurement and give report. This application has been rejected. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Patil appearing on behalf of the petitioner. If it is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in question for substantially long time, so as to have right of ownership on the basis of adverse possession in principle the petitioner must be having all relevant documents in his custody to show that he has been enjoying the land in question for a long time. As set out in the plaint, if it is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land for long time, then he was required to produce in the suit all the documentary evidence to show that he is continuously occupying the said land against the interest of the owner. In view of the frame of the suit plaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot seek assistance from the court through the person who could go and measure the land at site or TILR. In my view, the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Bhivandi has taken correct view of the matter in as much as the petitioner cannot collect 3 evidence in support of the case with the assistance of the court. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order and the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)