1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.W. No.2980/2010 in Writ Petition No.5211/2010 ( Shri Kalluprasad S/o Kalidin Gupta -: VERSUS :- Shri Mahesh S/o Hariratan Lakhotia & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Kothari, Adv. for applicant - petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER 2010. Heard. For the reasons disclosed in the application, order dated 25/10/2010 is recalled and writ petition No.5211/2010 is restored back to file. Writ Petition No.5211/2010. Heard Adv. Shri Kothari for petitioner – plaintiff. In a suit filed in 2005 petitioner – plaintiff moved an application for appointment of Commissioner to admeasure the alleged encroachment. That application at Exh.40 was rejected. That adjudication was not questioned. Thereafter, he moved another application at Exh.69 and sought demarcation of four boundaries of his plot as per sale deed. By impugned order dated 19/8/2010 the Joint Civil Judge 2 (Junior Division), Kamptee has rejected that application. Contention of Adv. Shri Kothari is that purpose of both the applications is different and as per the settled law in suits for removal of encroachment, for ascertainment of area appointment of Court Commissioner is essential. There cannot be any debate about legal position. However, I find it difficult to accept that purpose of both the applications i.e. Exh.40 and Exh.69 is different. Order passed below Exh.40 has attained finality. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Tambaskar.