FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7405 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5385 OF 2009 ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|___________________________________ This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the learned C.J.J.D., Omerga, District Osmanabad on Exh.80 in R.C.S. No.330/2004 (Old RCS NO. 330/1994). 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the copy of the sale deed produced on record in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court while passing the impugned order are contrary to the contents of the sale deed. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the impugned order is passed by the trial Court without application of mind and without looking into the contents of the sale deed. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3 The learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer in the petition and submitted that the applications filed by the petitioners, one after another before the trial Court are just to prolong hearing of the suit. The trial court has correctly appreciated the contents of the sale deed and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 4 I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents and also perused the para 6 of the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. The trial Court has observed: "In the absence of any specifications in the sale-deed Exh.19 an appointment of court commissioner will be nothing but to collection of evidence through this Court." The trial Court further observed that in the sale-deed there is no mention of survey number and or gut number in which the suit plot is situated. 5 On perusal of the copy of the sale deed produced on record before this Court, I find that in the sale deed the plot number is mentioned, boundaries are also mentioned. Therefore the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order are not sustainable and those are contrary to the contents of the sale deed. 6 Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned C.J.J.D., Omerga, District Osmanabad on Exh.80 in R.C.S. No.330/2004 (Old RCS NO.330/1994) is set aside. The application Exh.80 is restored to its original position. The trial Court shall hear both the parties on the said application and after taking into consideration the contents of the sale deed, pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from receipt of this order. With these observations, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. (S.S. SHINDE, J). 31.08.2009. PLK/#