1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5759 OF 2009 Somnath S/o Ramrao Jawale, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Kolher Tq. Georai, District Beed & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Avdhut S/o Jagannath Yeole, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. Kolher Tq. Georai, District Beed. .. Respondent ... Mr. B.A. Darak , Advocate for petitioners. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition is preferred by the original plaintiff challenging the order dated 13-07-2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, 2 Junior Division, Georai below Exhibit-44 in R.C.S. No. 27/2007. The petitioner - original plaintiff filed R.C.S. No.27/2007 for recovery of 3 Ares land which had been shown as encroached portion of the plaintiff's land by the respondent - original defendant. Along with the plaint, the petitioner has filed on record the map prepared by the T.I.L.R. wherein it has been shown that the respondent is in possession of 3 Ares land in Gat No. 151. Thereafter, the respondent - original defendant also filed application below Exhibit 24 under Order 22 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for appointment of T.I.L.R. as a Court Commissioner. As per order below Exhibit-24, the trial Court directed the T.I.L.R. to measure the land of Gat Nos. 151, 152 and 133/1 which covers the land of the petitioner as well as defendant. 3. As per order passed by the trial Court, T.I.L.R. has measured the land and submitted his report on 09-05-2008. Being aggrieved by the 3 subsequent report of T.I.L.R., the petitioner - original plaintiff filed present application below Exh-44 under Order 21 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of D.I.L.R. as a Court Commissioner. Said application came to be dismissed by order dated 13-07-2009 on the ground that two reports of T.I.L.R. are already on record and the petitioner has an opportunity to cross examine the T.I.L.R. on the point of inconsistency of two maps. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as subsequent report submitted by the T.I.L.R. is inconsistent with previous report, it is necessary to appoint higher authority i.e. D.I.L.R. to measure the said land again. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the authority in the matter of Sheepat vs. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. reported 4 in JT 2000 (7) SC 379, Girish Vasantrao Bhoyar & Anr. vs. Nimbaji Warluji Bambhul reported in 2009(4) ALL MR 761, and in the matter of Vijay s/o Shrawan Shende & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2009(4) ALL MR 601. 5. In all these matters, Bombay High Court held that whenever there is dispute about the land i.e. area/boundaries/measurements, it is proper to appoint some expert i.e. T.I.L.R. to measure the land and submit report. In the present case, two reports submitted by the T.I.L.R. are already on record. Therefore, it is not necessary to appoint again D.I.L.R. to measure the same land. In any case, the petitioner has an opportunity to examine the T.I.L.R. who prepared the reports, either to support or to oppose the report submitted subsequently by the T.I.L.R. on the application filed by the respondent - defendant. 5 6. Considering these facts, I do not find any merits in the present Writ Petition and same is dismissed summarily. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp5759.09