Dismissed

Munjaji Ravji More v. Panditrao Sakharam More and Others

Bombay HC17 Dec 2024WP/13779/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application for a court commissioner to inspect and measure suit land. The High Court held that since no boundary or encroachment dispute existed, evidence was not required, finding no perversity in the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Application for order under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC rejected.

Munjaji Ravji More Vs Panditrao Sakharam More and Others — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

906-WP-13779-2024.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:30080

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13779 OF 2024

¶5

Munjaji Ravji More

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Panditrao Sakharam More And Others

¶8

¶9

• Mr. P. N. Kalani, Advocate for the Petitioner *******

¶10

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:DECEMBER 17, 2024

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.Petitioner/Original Defendant No. 3 challenges

¶13

order passed Exh. 12 in RCS No. 14/2024 dated
19.09.2024 whereby application filed by the Petitioner
for inspection and measurement of the suit land bearing
Block No. 391 came to be rejected.

¶14

2.The Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration

¶15

of ownership and possession over the suit property. The
Defendants resisted the said suit by filing written
statement.

¶16

3.At the stage of argument of application Exh.
5, Exh. 12 came to be filed for spot inspection and
measurement of the subject property. This application
is rejected on the ground that there is no issue of

¶17

PAGE 1 OF 3

¶18

Umesh

¶19

906-WP-13779-2024.odt

¶20

boundary dispute and encroachment is involved in the
suit.

¶21

4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn
attention of the Court to the contentions of Petitioner
in Exh. 12 which according to him required the
appointment of the Court Commissioner if not for
measurement then at least for spot inspection. To
support his submissions, he placed reliance on
order/judgments of this Court in the cases of Writ
Petition No. 4947/2011, Dated 08.07.2011,Habibkhan s/o
Inamuttankhan and Ors vs. Waman Govind Rathod and Ors,
ALL MR-2012-1-803,Mr. Mohd. Hashim Ajmullah Khan vs.
Vasiullah Nasibullah Khan and Ors, Appeal from Order
No. 754/2013& Malhar Ganpat Bokephod and others vs.
Shivaji Vishwanath Pawal, Writ Petition No. 7094/2013.

¶22

5. There is no dispute about the fact that the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 9 CPC cannot be exercised for the purpose of collecting evidence. Merely because, an application is filed below Order XXXIX, Rule 7 CPC, it cannot be ignored that for all practical purposes the Court Commissioner is sought to be appointed under Order XXVI, Rule 9 CPC. It is for the Umesh PAGE 2 OF 3

¶23

906-WP-13779-2024.odt

¶24

parties to lead evidence first to substantiate their
contention. An application moved at this stage will
amount to collecting evidence through the order of
Court. Apart from this, prima facie perusal of the
record indicates that there is no dispute herein about
the measurement of the subject property nor there is
claim of any encroachment being done thereon. In such
circumstances, neither question of local inspection or
even measurement arise in this case. This Court,
therefore, finds no perversity in the impugned order.

¶25

6.In view of above, Petition stands dismissed.

¶26

PAGE 3 OF 3

¶27

Umesh

Munjaji Ravji More v. Panditrao Sakharam More and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munjaji Ravji More v. Panditrao Sakharam More and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Sanjoy Shivdas Mukherjee vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Mr. Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Shushila Rajendra Londhe Vs Agricultural College Dhule through Its Principal and Another

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shankar Babarao Jawanjal Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner Nanded Region and Others