Allowed

Prakash Shankar Jadhav and Ors. v. Chandrashekhar Kashinath Shinde and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2024WP/7730/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to determine land boundaries. The Court directed the Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the pending suit within six months, to the parties' contentions being kept open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.09.2021 was available; the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months and grant adjournments only if utmost necessary.

Prakash Shankar Jadhav and Ors. Vs Chandrashekhar… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

P4. CIVIL WP-7730-2023.docx

¶2

Amberkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7730 OF 2023

¶6

Prakash Shankar Jadhav & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chandrashekhar Kashinath Shinde & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Amit Sale for Petitioners

¶10

Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for Respondents

¶11

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

¶12

DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2024

¶13

P. C.:

¶14

Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

¶15

Perused the praecipe dated 22.02.2024.

¶16

Heard Mr. Sale, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondents.

¶17

Present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by learned Trial Court whereby Application filed under O. XXVI, R. 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner in a Suit filed in 2017 for injunction and removal of encroachment came to be rejected.

¶18

According to Mr. Sale, Plaintiffs were originally owner of 37 R land out of which by registered deed in 1997, they sold 12 R to the Defendants. Principal grievance in the Suit is with respect to

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

P4. CIVIL WP-7730-2023.docx

¶21

encroachment in view of non-adherence by the Defendants to their boundaries and therefore the Suit has been filed. Application for appointment of the Court Commissioner stood rejected by the learned Trial Court on the premise that the parties have not led evidence as yet and therefore it would be premature to appoint Commissioner which would amount to collection of evidence.

¶22

Be that as it may considering the submissions made by Mr. Sale with respect to the fact that Plaintiffs were the original owners of the larger area, out of which a smaller area was carved out and sold to the Defendants, if there is any grievance with respect to the land held by Defendants, in the first instance, parties would be entitled to lead appropriate cogent evidence to that effect and only thereafter if the Court feels that the Commissioner is necessitated, the Court can suo moto on its own accord or even at the instance of the parties appoint Court Commissioner at that stage.

¶23

Mr. Sale would fairly submit that in view of the above facts, determination of boundaries is the principal lis between the parties and to that effect Plaintiffs have placed on record adequate documentary evidence in the form of the registered sale deed as also other incidental and ancillary documents pertaining to the Plaintiffs’ holdings. If that be the case, it would be certainly open to the Plaintiffs to lead appropriate evidence before the learned Trial Court, if

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

P4. CIVIL WP-7730-2023.docx

¶26

so desired, and equally the Defendants will also be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal, strictly in accordance with law.

¶27

Considering the fact that the Suit has been filed in the year 2017, learned Trial Court is requested by this Court to dispose of the Suit proceedings strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from today. Parties shall not insist for unnecessary adjournments and the learned Trial Court shall give adjournment only if it is utmost necessary. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open and any opinion expressed on merits of the matter in the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 shall not influence the decision of the learned Trial Court while determining the Suit proceedings.

¶28

With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶29

Amberkar

¶30

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶31

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA MOHAN MOHAN AMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date: 2024.02.23 18:26:02 +0530

¶32

3 of 3

Prakash Shankar Jadhav and Ors. v. Chandrashekhar Kashinath Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Shankar Jadhav and Ors. v. Chandrashekhar Kashinath Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Dhondu Toraskar vs Dhondu Tukaram Toraskar (Deceased)

Arun Ramchandra Ghongade Vs Laxman Vitthal Ghongade and Ors.

Arun Ramchandra Ghongade Vs Laxman Vitthal Ghongade and Ors.

Kshetra Goraknath Math Cheravali Thr. Yogi Balanath Guru Kisannath Maharaj Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union Bank of India, Thr. Chief Manager Mr. Awnish Kumar Vs M/S. Shruti Developers Thr. Partners, Mr. Shyam Manohar Bade

Lalit Ramesh Oswal and Anr. Vs Barkabai Dashratha Goje and Ors.