1 W.P.No.7050/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7051 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.B.N.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 15.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for simpliciter injunction in respect of the well. The parties led their evidence and thereafter the petitioner moved an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to verify the location of the well i.e. whether the well is in the common Bandh of the petitioner and Respondent No.1 or is situated in the land of Respondent No.1. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.B.N. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner is sought to be appointed to verify the location 2 W.P.No.7050/11 the well and is not for collecting the evidence. The same can be verified by the witness and the other side will have right to cross- examine him. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Yeshwant Bhaduji Ghuse Vs. Vithobaji Laxman Ladekar" reported in 2010 (3) Bom.C.R.373 and another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Girish Vasantrao Bhoyar and another Vs. Nimbaji Warluji Bambal" reported in 2009 (4) ALL MR 761. 4. The suit is a simpliciter suit for injunction. The dispute is not about the area or the boundaries. The petitioner contends that the well has been constructed on the common Bandh of the petitioner and Respondent No.1, whereas the case of the Respondent No.1 is that the well is constructed in his land. It does not appear to be the case of the parties that there is an encroachment of any party over the land of another party nor a case has been made out of overlapping boundaries. The situation of the well can be proved by oral evidence which the parties have already led. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a case of "Girish Vasantrao Bhoyar and another Vs. Nimbaji Warluji Bambal" referred supra was dealing with the case, wherein joint measurement was required to be taken as it was a case of encroachment. Even in a case of "Yeshwant Bhduji 3 W.P.No.7050/11 Ghuse Vs. Vithobaji Laxman Ladekar" referred supra, the Court was dealing with the case of a boundary dispute, wherein measurement was found necessary. In the present case no such dispute exist. 5. In view of the above, no error has been committed by the Court in rejecting the application. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.15.09.2011. asp/office/wp7051.11 4 W.P.No.7050/11