The single-judge High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the original defendant aggrieved by a rejected application for directions to a Court Commissioner regarding a suit for perpetual injunction involving disputed land.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP 7696.2017.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7696 OF 2017
BABULAL RATAN CHAUDHARI VERSUS
SANTOSH TUPAJI PATIL
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr Wani Girish V.
... CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J. Dated: November 06, 2017
PER COURT :-
exh.49 for issuance of directions to the Court Commissioner/Deputy Superintendent of Land Records.
Said application came to be rejected. On perusal of the contents of the application Exh.49, it appears that suit has been instituted simplicitor for a decree of perpetual
injunction. The Court Commissioner came to be appointed at the behest of the petitioner-defendant and accordingly Court Commissioner/Deputy
aaa/-
2 WP 7696.2017.odt
Superintendent of Land Records has submitted the report alongwith the map. In the said map, Court Commissioner has shown the disputed area. According to the petitioner-defendant, Court Commissioner has not particularly shown the aforesaid area belonging to the plaintiff-defendant. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of said disputed area. It is not possible for the Court Commissioner to point out specifically as to the actual possession of either of the party over the said disputed portion of the land. Both the parties have disputed the report and map submitted by the Court Commissioner. It is for the parties to substantiate their case by oral or documentary evidence in respect of the ownership and possession over the disputed area. I do not find any fault in the impugned order passed below exh.49. There is no substance in the writ petition. Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for issuance of directions to Court Commissioner is correct.
Babulal Ratan Chaudhari
Santosh Tupaji Patil
V. K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
