1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2010 Mr. Maruti P. Jadhav ... Applicant Vs. Khandala Vibhag Shikshan Samiti, Khandala & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.B.K.Barve a/w Sanjeev Sawant i/by M/s.B.K.Barve and Co. , advs. for Applicant. Mr. Rahul M. More i/by Uday P. Warunjikar, advs. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 1st September, 2010. P. C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is original plaintiff. He had filed Second Appeal No.512 of 2008. While disposing off that appeal on 6.8.2008, this Court had directed the trial Court to appoint District Inspector Land Records as a commissioner for fresh measurement of the land gat nos.8 and 10. Accordingly, trial Court directed District Inspector Land Records and as per the rules, District Inspector Land Records deputed one of the surveyors to take measurement. Measurement was taken. The applicant thereafter made an application before the trial Court contending that measurement should have been undertaken by the superior officer as per the super­nimtana procedure. He tried to contend 2 before the trial Court that the order of this Court was for super­nimtana measurement. That prayer was rejected. Against that, he has preferred the present revision application. Revision application is not tenable. Firstly, because the order passed by the trial Court is interlocutory and revision does not lie. Secondly, applicant appears to have misunderstood the earlier order of this Court. This Court never directed for super­nimtana measurement and when the D.I.L.R. is appointed as a commissioner, as per the rules, he could appoint any other surveyor to undertake the measurement and that has been done and thus, the order is already complied. In case after recording the evidence of the surveyor, who has undertaken measurement, it is found that measurement was not done by him correctly and if the trial Court feels it necessary, it may direct super­ nimtana measurement by the superior officer. In view of these circumstances, I find no reason to entertain the revision application. 2 Revision application stands dismissed. 3 Since the revision application itself is dismissed, civil application no.120 of 2010 does not survive and stands disposed off. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)