1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2269 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2269 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Kasliwal for Petitioner and Advocate Mr. R. P. Adgaonkar, holding for Advocate Mr. Kshirsagar for Respondent No.5 caveator. 2. Short contention of learned counsel for petitioner is, in changed circumstances the measurement ought to have been ordered and earlier rejection of similar application by petitioner/ plaintiff could not have been treated as bar. It is urged that, in cross examination Respondent/ defendant agreed to joint measurement and also to hand over possession of excess land if so found in it. Learned counsel, therefore, states that to resolve the controversy once for all, the joint measurement ought to have been ordered. 3. Shri Adgaonkar points out that the controversy is rightly considered by trial Court and the matter is now posted for 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2269 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. judgment on 25th March, 2011. 4. Earlier efforts of petitioner/ plaintiff to seek measurement failed, thereafter a review application was filed, that was rejected and thereafter instant application at Exhibit-185 is third such application. The alleged admissions given by Respondent/ defendant in his cross examination can be looked into by trial Court at appropriate stage and that cannot be the reason for ordering joint measurement. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:22/03/2011. ans/2269