1 WP 5302.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5302 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 : 20/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit seeking directions against the T.I.L.R. to measure the property and fix the boundaries. Before the parties led their evidence, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner i.e. the T.I.L.R. to measure the land. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whenever there is a dispute about the boundaries, the T.I.L.R. is required to be appointed to assist the Court. For the said 2 WP 5302.2011 purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Rajesh S/o Ratanlal Agrawal V/s Ramkishan S/o Jagannath Khandelwal and another reported in 2002 (3) ALL MR – 881. The learned counsel further contends that even the defendant in his Written Statement has averred that the boundaries are required to be corrected. In such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the Court Commissioner is appointed. 3. It has been observed by the trial court in the impugned order that earlier also the land was measured by the T.I.L.R. The said measurement is not yet proved. The same can be proved on examination of the witness. The evidence has not been led by the parties. What is sought to be claimed by the application for the appointment of Court Commissioner is the final relief in the Suit. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge in a case of Rajesh Ratanlal Agrawal referred supra would be of no assistance to the petitioner in as much as in the said case, the Court was concerned with the Suit for possession alleging encroachment by the defendant. In the present case, no such relief is claimed by the petitioner. The Suit is only for the purpose that the T.I.L.R. be appointed to fix 3 WP 5302.2011 the boundaries. 4. In view of the above, no error is committed by the Court in passing the impugned order. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 5302.2011