1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4479/2009 (Anil Shrirang Wankhade vs. Suresh A. Dhok and others ) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4486/2009 (Anil Shrirang Wankhade vs. Suresh A. Dhok and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2009. Heard Mrs. Chandekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gode, learned counsel for respondents. Common judgment dated 15th July 2009 delivered by District Judge-II, Akola, in M.C.A. No. 93/2008 and M.C.A. No. 61/2009 has been questioned in these petitions. Mrs. Chandekar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner states that the learned District Court has over looked the fact that the measurement dated 20.5.2006 was superseded by subsequent measurement dated 18.7.2006. She further states that the entire area in dispute of suit land i.e. Gat No. 170/4 is 1.69 H.R. Advocate Shri Gode for respondents states that both sides have filed suits against each other claiming possession and there have been several measurements. He, 2 therefore, states that no measurement can be treated as final at this stage. He further points out that Lower Appellate Court has passed that injunction given to the petitioner by the Trial Court needed to be restricted to remaining area after excluding 1.69 H.R. portion from it. He argues that 1.69 H.R. is found to be in possession of the present respondents. Lastly, in the alternative, learned counsel contends that as the Lower Appellate Court has directed Commissioner to be appointed for measuring both lands, status-quo as on today should be ordered and proceedings in suit should be expedited. The lower Appellate Court has already ordered appointment of Commissioner to carry out the measurements. However, record shows that there have been atleast two more measurements and records thereof are already available on record. The learned District Court has interfered with the order of the Trial Court only because of its observations in paragraph 18 that no party is claiming possession over 1.69 H.R. of land. I have heard both counsel about this finding. The finding appears to be erroneous because area involved in dispute from land Gat No.170/4 is 1.69 hectares. It is, therefore, obvious that petitioner has claimed and is claiming to be in possession of 1.69 hectare. The said finding of Lower Appellate Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. The impugned common judgment is, therefore, set aside. The order passed below Exh.5 by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner is restored. Liberty to the present respondents to move the 3 trial Court for expeditious disposal of the civil suit after the report of the Commissioner. Order accordingly. Writ petitions disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit.