( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 119 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13035 OF 2008 Dnyaneshwar @ Gina s/o. Shripati Kale .. Appellant Versus Bapurao s/o. Baburao Dikle and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 18.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. This appeal from order is directed against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge-2, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2002 decided on 30.08.2008, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Kallam in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1987 decided on 06.08.2002. ( 2 ) 2. The plaintiff/appellant filed original suit for declaration and injunction in respect of Block No. 39 admeasuring 2 H 91 R land situated at Tandulwadi, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. During pendnecy of the suit the plaintiff applied for measurement of the land and the land was measured. P.W.1 – Parasram Kadam, Surveyor measured the land. It was found that there was encroachment to the extent of 6 R and therefore the suit was amended and prayer for possession of encroached portion was added. There is no much dispute regarding title of the plaintiff over Block No.39 and his possession. The dispute is mainly in respect of Neem and Babul trees on the boundaries so also regarding measurement. 3. The learned advocate has taken me through the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The learned advocate for the respondent has drawn my attention to paras 11, 12 and 13 of the Trial Court judgment. It is clear that though it was mentioned that the defendants were present at the time of measurements, no record was produced to show that notices were actually served on the defendants. P.W.1 Parasram Kadam, Surveyor stated on oath that he had prepared notices ( 3 ) and handed them over to his office for service and therefore he presumed that notices might have been served, but he had not brought office record. The entire file of measurement was not brought and therefore defendants’ case that they were not served with notice was accepted. It is also pointed out by the learned First Appellate Court that all pot-hissas of Survey no. 11 and 12 were not measured. The land of the defendants was not measured. In-fact, it was found during measurements that holder of land Block No.37 is cultivating 5 R land from Survey NO.39, holder of Survey No. 39 was cultivating 4 R land from land Survey No.41 and it is not known whether owner of Gat No. 41 has any grievance. The lands of these persons were not measured. The road was passing through the land and it was also not measured. Therefore, fresh measurements were felt necessary. 4. After giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides, in my opinion, this is not a case where any interference by this Court to the directions given by the learned District Judge is required. In the circumstances, this Appeal From order is dismissed. ( 4 ) 5. In view of dismissal of this Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 13035 of 2008 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ao119.08