1 WP 5452/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5452 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 15th July 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner (judgment debtor) challenges the order dated 25 June 2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan. 3. The petitioner has suffered a decree of injunction in Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 1986 which has been confirmed in appeal. 2 WP 5452/10 According to the respondent (decree holder), despite injunction the petitioner is trying to disturb his possession. It appears that the judgment debtor is contending that the portion over which the injunction is sought to be enforced is not the suit property belonging to and in possession of the judgment debtor. In view of this objection, the decree holder has prayed for appointment of a Court Commissioner to demarcate the portion in respect of which the decree operates. The trial court has allowed the appointment of Taluka Inspector of Land Record (T.I.L.R.) for measurement. I see no error committed by the trial Judge in appointing T.I.L.R. for the purpose of demarcating the property over which the injunction operates. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)