1 sa583 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.583 OF 2011 Waman Jagannath Mestri ...Appellant vs. Krishnaji Anant Khobarekar (deceased through L.Rs) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Deepak Patil for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original first defendant against whom a decree for removal of encroachment has been passed which has been confirmed in appeal. 2 Initially, the suit filed by the respondent nos. 1(a) to 1(h) was dismissed by the Trial Court. In Appeal there was an order of remand passed with a direction to the Trial Court to allow the parties to apply to the Taluka Inspector of Land Records for carrying out survey for ascertaining the encroachment. Accordingly, the Taluka Inspector of Land Records was appointed as a Court Commissioner to submit a report along with the survey map. Accordingly, a survey was carried out and a report along with survey map was filed on record. Relying upon the report, the Trial Court passed a decree for removal of encroachment. The encroachment was 2 sa583 ordered to be removed in terms of the encroachment shown on the map drawn by the Court Commissioner. The said decree has been confirmed in appeal. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court Commissioner who has carried out the survey was not examined by the original plaintiffs to prove the case of the encroachment. He submitted that the decree for removal of encroachment could not have been passed. 4 I have considered the submissions. The report and the map drawn by the Court Commissioner was admissible in evidence under Rule 10 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. If the appellant had any objection to the report and the survey map, it was for the appellant to raise the objection and to call the Court Commissioner for cross examination. However, the appellant did not take proper steps. 5 The Appellate Court has noted the admission of the appellant in the cross examination that he had no documentary evidence to show that one Mr.Shridhar Gajanan Korgaonkar was the owner of the disputed property. 6 In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7 Civil application no.1411 of 2011 does not 3 sa583 survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE