1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4495 OF 2009. 1. Smt. Shakuntala Wd/o. Gurusingh Motghare, R/o. Plot No.15, Gopal Nagar, Nagpur. .. PETITIONER/S. // VERSUS // 1. Baburao Damduji Meshram, R/o. 64/2, Somwari Quarter, Nagpur. 2. Khushal Damduji Meshram, R/o. Plot No.823/71 Sainik Society, Shaktinagar, Jabalpur (M.P.) 3. Prafulla Chotelal Thakkar, R/o. Room No.8, First Floor, Sanskruti Sankul, Rani Jhasi Square, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 4. Nilesh Krishnakumar Kariya, R/o. L-25, Shantinagar Colony, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri J. Aloni, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2009. 1. This petition is direction against order passed below Exh.255 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, whereby he allowed defendant’s application for direction to the petitioner to pay requisite court fees on the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property. 2 2. The petitioner, plaintiff claims that he was in possession of the property but only on a small part of the property there was an encroachment by the defendants. However, the pleas which the petitioner inserted, by amendment, by incorporating paragraph 13(2) of the plaint read as under : “Para 13(2)- That on 25/4/2009 at about 10 a.m. It is noticed by plaintiff that the defendant no.3 & 4 has started a Kacha work of bricks masonry compound wall on the front side of the suit plot and encroached the same. ....” 3. In the prayer clause prayer iii (a) was sought to be inserted, which reads as under : “iii(a) – To direct the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit plot to the plaintiff by removing the kaccha construction of the compound wall in front of the suit property.” 4. These amended pleas do not show that this encroachment was on the part of the suit plot. The petitioner has not filed any sketch showing which is the portion under encroachment. The petitioner has sought possession of the entire suit plot. It cannot be said that construction of compound wall amounts to encroachment only on the portion on which the wall is constructed. If the plaintiff has come up with such a plea the learned Judge cannot be faulted for directing the plaintiff to pay the court fees on the relief of possession which he had sought. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.