1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1351 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1351 OF 2011 *** 1. In a suit for injunction simpliciter application under Order XXVI Rule 9 was filed and that has been rejected by trial Court after noticing that before filing of suit one measurement was already carried out. According to Advocate Mr. Garud for petitioner/ plaintiff, suit is based on subsequent cause and hence that measurement is totally irrelevant. He also placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of "Tajmulhussain Mulla Mumtaz Hussain V/s Satish Bhanudas Chavan" reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 664 where this Court has held that when there was dispute about location of land in a particularly survey number, application by plaintiff for appointment of Commissioner to measure the land could have been granted. It is held that such order passed by trial Court is revisable under section 115 of the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1351 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is apparent that such order is not revisable now under section 115 C.P.Code. Moreover, there is already one measurement on record. Trial Court has considered the same. I, therefore, do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:28/02/2011. ans/1351