1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3254 OF 2009 Babasaheb s/o Rawan Gadade & others Petitioners Versus Sampat s/o Yeshwant Gadade & others Respondents Mr.H.V.Patil, advocate for petitioners. Mrs.V.B.Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. For Respondents No.2 & 3. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by petitioner - plaintiffs requesting for appointment of T.I.LR. as Commissioner for measuring disputed property was earlier allowed. The T.I.L.R. was directed to measure the property. Accordingly, measurement has been conducted by the T.I.L.R. and report in that regard has been submitted to the trial Court. Not only this, the T.I.L.R. was examined as witness on behalf of the plaintiff. Although earlier report was in his favour, plaintiff again made a request for re-measurement of disputed property for the reason that the T.I.L.R. has stated, during his cross examination, that he has no record to indicate that while conducting measurement, notices were issued to the defendants and further that he cannot tell with certainty as to whether son of defendant was present during 2 measurement. Plaintiff apprehends that taking benefit of certain admissions given by the T.I.L.R. during cross examination, the report tendered by T.I.L.R. to the Court may not be accepted. 2 The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is misplaced for the reason that report of T.I.L.R. has not been objected to by the defendants on the ground that there was no notice in respect of measurement and it is specifically admitted that defendant's son was present during conduct of measurement by the T.I.L.R. So far as availability of old record is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that same is not available in the office of T.I.L.R. and such a pursis is issued by the concerned office. The plaintiff may bring this fact to the notice of the trial Court. 3 Considering facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason for accepting the prayer made by plaintiff for appointing measurement officer once again for conducting re-measurement of the property. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 4 Writ Petition stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp325409