1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.452/2008 [Ramesh s/o Janbaji Kanoje and one another .vrs. Bharat Pandurang Patle and one another] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, Advocate for the appellants. .......... Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 9 th February, 2009. Present appellants are original defendants which alleged concurrent judgments and decrees whereby the courts have found that they have encroached upon Gat No.37/2 of the present respondents. The case of the present appellants/original defendants was that they are occupying Government land Gat No.629 and the said Gat No.629 does not belonging to the present respondents. Both the courts have found that the description of the properties revealed that the wooden stall erected by the present appellant is on Gat No.37/2 of respondents. It was also found that there was no government land in the vicinity of Gat No.37/2. The courts also found 2 that Gat No.37/2 was situated in corner between Ramtek road and Grampanchayat road. After this road, there was revenue land. In this background, Advocate Ghurde has contended that the courts below ought to have appointed Commissioner to find out exact location of wooden stall or then the measurer like TILR to find out the position. The discussion of evidence by the courts below that there is no confusion about the placement of wooden stall. In fact, the evidence of witness for the defendant DW 5 Suraj itself shows that there is no government land in the vicinity of Gat No.37/2 and Gat No.37/2 is in the corner of Ramtek road and Grampanchayat road and it belongs to plaintiff. Advocate Ghurde has relied upon certain judgments to show that in such circumstances the courts have to appoint proper authority for measuring the suit plot. In view of facts mentioned above, as there is no confusion, I do not find any need to such appointment. No substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE Gulande