Now that prayer relating to removal of fencing is deleted by Plaintiff as the very purpose of appointment of the Court Commissioner no longer survives. The learned counsel appearing for Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Govardhan versus Sai Baba Estate1 in support of his contention that whenever there is disputes about boundaries, appointment of the Court Commissioner is eminent. Facts in that case are entirely different. In that case, there was no dispute about boundaries of the property, but Defendant therein has disputed existence of the Suit property itself. That case did not involve dispute relating to use of access road. The judgment therefore is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, Plaintiff asserts that the open space available next to the house of Defendants is the access road which Plaintiff must be permitted to use. Defendants on the other hand denies that such open space can be termed as the access road. Defendants go ahead and contend that there is alternate road available to Plaintiff to access his house. In these circumstances, the measurement as to the length and width of such an open space (which is termed as access road) would not serve the very purpose. So far as Defendant’s assertion about availability of
