1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1020 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2205 OF 2005 Shri Pandharinath Govind Kadam ..... Appellants & Ors. vs. Shri Ganpati Dnyanu Savvasgee & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure,Advocate for Appellants. Mr.T.S. Ingale, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 29th June 2009. PC : 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22nd December 2004 passed by 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.235 of 1999. By the said order, the District Court dismissed the appeal against judgment and decree dated 9th April 1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1998. By the two impugned judgments, both the Courts have held that the appellants have encroached upon the land of respondents to the extent of 6 R. and directed him to hand over possession thereof to the appellants. Mr.Mankapure, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaint filed by respondents was defective in as much as it did not comply with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, Maharashtra Amendment under which a plaintiff seeking to file suit for possession by removal of encroachment is required to annex a copy of sketch or map to the plaint. This being a mandatory provision according to him the suit should have been dismissed. 2 2. There is no doubt that the provision of Order 7, Rule 3 requires a plaintiff to specify the portion of the land of which possession is sought by annexing a copy of the sketch to the plaint. However, it is necessary to take into consideration the purpose of the provision. The purpose is two fold. The first purpose is to give complete opportunity of defence to the defendant and another is that the decree for possession that may be passed in the suit be an executable decree with the description of the property complete and identifiable. In the plaint at paragraph no.1, the plaintiff describes the area of the land encroached upon and its location. Undisputedly during the pendency of the suit, the Taluka Land Inspector surveyed the property and made his report which was before the Court for it’s consideration. The report completely identifies the area encroached upon by the appellant. There was also Court Commissioner appointed to visit the site. The Courts, however did not consider the evidence of the Commissioner, because he was not examined as a witness. Since at the time the parties went in for trial, the report of T.I.L.R. was available which completely identifies the property encroached upon, I find no substance whatsoever in the submissions of Mr.Mankapure that the court below ought to have to dismissed the suit. In any case, the non compliance of the provision is only an irregularity and not illegality going to the root of the matter. I have perused orders of both the courts below. They have arrived at the concurrent findings as regards encroachment by the appellant and directed him to hand over possession to the respondent. The findings are supported by the evidence on record and cannot be said to be 3 unreasonable or perverse findings. Therefore, there is no question of disturbing the same. There is also no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the Court. Hence the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. 3. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.2205 of 2005 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J.)