Dismissed

Prashant Venkatrao Reddy v. Sayyed Pirpasha Rahimsaheb and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2013WP/490/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad examined a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for a Court Commissioner to fix boundaries. The suit was for declaration and injunction, not removal of encroachment or possession. The court held the appointment unnecessary and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Prashant Venkatrao Reddy Vs Sayyed Pirpasha Rahimsaheb and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.490/13

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.490 OF 2013

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

 Mr.A.N.Gaddime, advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 17.01.2013.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner for demarcating and fixing east-west boundaries by conducting joint measurement is rejected.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also the application was made for appointment of TILR as a Court Commissioner. It was rejected. The petitioner had filed Writ petition. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer at the time of recording of evidence. According to learned counsel for petitioner the fixation of boundaries are necessary so as to demarcate the area owned by the plaintiff and defendant. In view of the liberty granted by the High Court, the application was given. According to the learned counsel, the Court

¶16

¶17

W.P.No.490/13

¶18

has not taken into consideration the merits of the application and has erroneously rejected the same.

¶19

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. No doubt, the High Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for appointment of Court Commissioner at the time of recording of evidence. The petitioner who is the defendant filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner at the stage of recording evidence. However, it has been observed that the suit is for declaration and injunction only. It is not the case of removal of encroachment or for possession. It is for the plaintiff to prove his title and possession over the area of the land as claimed by him.

¶20

If it would have been a case of removal of encroachment or possession then no doubt, the appointment of Court Commissioner for measurement would have been imperative. However, the suit is for declaration and injunction and the petitioner is a defendant, the appointment of Court Commissioner would not be necessary.

¶21

In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶23

Dt.17.01.2013. asp/office/wp490.13

¶24

¶25

W.P.No.490/13

Prashant Venkatrao Reddy v. Sayyed Pirpasha Rahimsaheb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Venkatrao Reddy v. Sayyed Pirpasha Rahimsaheb 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

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Shankarrao Kisan Chinchane Vs Dargah Hajrat Syed Shah Hamiduddin Samani Masjid and Graveyard, Parbhani and Ors.

Shobha Parasram Wale Vs the Addl. Dist. Collector, Ahmedngar and Ors.

Nagorao Manikrao Kanke Vs the Addl. Collector, Nanded and Ors.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aditi Harsha Navgire and Ors.

Bapusaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors.