Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2014 of 2009 Yashwant Sitlaprasad Yadav & ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Fasubai Vinayak Pawshe ...Respondent Mrs. Neha Palshikar Bhide for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Agarwal i/b. Dinesh Kothari for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009 : 2ND MARCH, 2009 : 2ND MARCH, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The first argument canvassed before this Court is that entire Survey No. 118/25 is subject matter of proceedings in Suit No. 432/2003. This aspect has already been dealt with by the Court below in Paragraph 5 of the impugned order. It has been found as of fact that issue regarding measurement of survey no. 118, Hissa No. 25 is not related to the issue with regard to measurement and demarcation of property involved in the present suit which is Survey No. 118, Hissa No. 25/2. Reliance is placed on document at page-47 of the paper book dated 26th November, 2007. Even on fair reading of the said document no different position can be discerned. In other words, the view taken by the Lower Court in Paragraph 5 is unexceptionable. 2 3. Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend that the issue regarding boundary dispute of the landed property is within the exclusive domain of the Collector not D.I.L.R. The argument clearly overlooks that D.I.L.R. has been appointed as Court Commissioner only to measure the property and prepare a map by adopting a necessary procedure to be submitted to the Court. It is not to resolve the boundary dispute as such. Hence, even this argument does not commend to me. 4. Accordingly, this Petition fails and the same is dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]