Kailaschand Fattechand Ajmera v. Swastik Sahakari Bhadekari Malaki Guhnirman Sanstha through Chairman and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2011WP/1494/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the petitioner's writ petition seeking appointment of a commissioner to measure suit property. The Court held that existing official measurement by T.I.L.R. suffices for filing the suit and parties must confirm it. No immediate interference granted.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of commissioner for measuring suit property denied.

Kailaschand Fattechand Ajmera Vs Swastik… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1494 OF 2011

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1494 OF 2011

¶8

***

¶9

1.Heard Shri Kulkarni holding for Advocate
Shri Narwadkar for Petitioner/ plaintiff and
Advocate Shri Chapalgaonkar for Respondent
No.3. The petitioner filed application under

¶10

Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.Code for appointment

¶11

of Commissioner for measuring the suit
property on the ground that earlier person

¶12

who has undertaken that exercise prior to

¶13

filing of suit has expired. According to
Advocate Mr. Kulkarni death of that person

¶14

came on record when the witness summons was
received back with that report and hence
application at Exhibit-127 was required to be
moved. According to him, therefore,
rejection of earlier application for said
purpose was not very relevant.

¶15

2.Shri Chapalgaonkar points out that

¶16

before filing suit office of T.I.L.R. has
undertaken the exercise of measurement and

¶17

¶18

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1494 OF 2011

¶20

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶21

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶22

based upon that measurement the suit has been

¶23

filed. He, therefore, states official act
can be proved in accordance with the
provisions of law and death of measurer by
itself is not hurdle in it.

¶24

3.I find that plaint itself refers to

¶25

measurement by the office of T.I.L.R. on 14th

¶26

November, 2003. The petitioner, therefore,

¶27

has to take appropriate steps to prove that
measurement as his suit is based upon it.
The parties then get opportunity to
substantiate their respective contentions on

¶28

the strength of that report. If, thereafter,

¶29

any ambiguity is found, the parties as also
the Court itself is free to take appropriate
steps in accordance with law. At present, I
am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs.

¶30

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶31

Dated:11/03/2011.
ans/1494

Kailaschand Fattechand Ajmera v. Swastik Sahakari Bhadekari Malaki Guhnirman Sanstha through Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailaschand Fattechand Ajmera v. Swastik Sahakari Bhadekari Malaki Guhnirman Sanstha through Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijabai Nana Pagore Vs Rajendrakumar Madanlal Kala and Ors.

Gangamai Industries and Constructions Limited through Vice President Ambadas Laxman More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

N Anjanaiah Vs Shrikant Vishwanath Puranik and Ors.

Ghansham Food Products Vs Supplyco the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Amey Enterprises through Proprietor Vs Cromption Greavesltd through Managing Director