Dismissed¶20

Vitthal Rambhau Patil and Others v. Rajesh Shenu Wagh and Another

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026WP/13939/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appointment of Court Commissioner; Order XXVI Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code; joint measurement of gat no.60 and gat no.56/1 and 56/2; removal of encroachment and possession; boundary dispute between respective holdings; inconclusive measurer's evidence (PW-2 Gajanan Narwade); admissions vitiating measurement report; Exhibit-115 application in R.C.S. No.36 of 2011; Civil Judge J.D. Muktainagar, District Jalgaon; writ petition dismissed; Dipak Eknath Todkar Vs. Dr. Bhanuprakash Bapurao Kadam (2019 Nearlaw Bombay HC Nagpur online 2167).

What did the court decide?

The evidence of PW-2 Gajanan Narwade (measurer) was inconclusive for deciding the disputed boundary, and the aforesaid measurement would not be useful for the Trial Court to reach a definite conclusion. ¶16

Vitthal Rambhau Patil and Others vs Rajesh Shenu Wagh and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order dated 25.9.2025 (below Exhibit-115 in R.C.S. No.36 of 2011) allowing the respondent-plaintiff's application for appointment of a Court Commissioner. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The discretion exercised by the Trial Court in appointing the Court Commissioner appears to be in tune with the object and scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶16

Key takeaways

In this background, the application for re-measurement of the land, particularly a joint measurement of gat no.60 owned by plaintiffs and gat no.56/1 and 56/2 of petitioners so as to conclusively resolve the controversy, was rightly allowed.ratio¶16
This Court finds no reason to interfere in the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court; the writ petition being sans merit is dismissed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 13939 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; February 02, 2026) — dismissed. Petitioners/defendants challenged the order dated 25.9.2025 of the Civil Judge J.D., Muktainagar (District Jalgaon) below Exhibit-115 in R.C.S. No.36 of 2011, whereby the respondent-plaintiff's application for appointment of a Court Commissioner was allowed. The underlying suit sought removal of encroachment and possession; the plaintiff had relied on a measurement map dated 26.3.2010, but during the evidence of PW-2 Gajanan Narwade (measurer) certain admissions were given that vitiated the measurement report, rendering his evidence inconclusive on the disputed boundary. Pleadings disclosed serious dispute as to boundaries of respective holdings, and the application sought a joint measurement of gat no.60 (plaintiffs) and gat nos.56/1 and 56/2 (petitioners) to conclusively resolve the controversy. Holding that the Trial Court's discretion was in tune with the object and scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and finding no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

wp 13939.25.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:5279

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

47 WRIT PETITION NO. 13939 OF 2025

¶6

Vitthal Rambhau Patil And Others VERSUS

¶7

Rajesh Shenu Wagh And Another

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V.B. Patil Advocate for Respondents 1,2 : Ms Nayana Patil h/f V.B. Patil

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : February 02, 2026

¶10

ORDER :-

¶11

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 25.9.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge J.D. Muktainagar, District Jalgaon below Exhibit-115 in R.C.S. No.36 of 2011, whereby application filed by respondent-plaintiff seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner has been allowed.

¶12

Respondent/plaintiff instituted suit for removal of encroachment and possession of the suit property. He relied upon measurement map dated 26.3.2010 to contend that defendants encroached upon the area within his ownership. Petitioners/defendants refuted plaintiffs claim by filing written statement. The Trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of plaintiffs and his witness particularly, measurer,

¶13

¶14

wp 13939.25.odt

¶15

however, during his evidence certain admissions are given that vitiates measurement report. Respondents/plaintiff filed application below Exhibit-115 seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner. Trial Court, after considering rival contentions observed that the question as to encroachment cannot be decided in absence of agreed measurement map. Trial Court relied upon observations of this Court in case of Dipak Eknath Todkar Vs. Dr. Bhanuprakash Bapurao Kadam, reported in 2019 Nearlaw (Bombay HC Nagpur) online 2167.

¶16

Apparently, from pleadings of the parties there appears serious dispute as to boundaries of respective holdings. Although, plaintiffs have relied upon evidence of PW-2Gajanan Narwade/measurer, his evidence found inconclusive for decision as regards to disputed boundary. Apparently, aforesaid measurement would not be useful for Trial Court to reach definite conclusion. In this background, application was filed by plaintiffs for re-measurement of the land particularly, a joint measurement of gat no.60 owned by plaintiffs and gat no.56/1 and 56/2 of petitioners so as to conclusively resolve controversy between the parties which has been rightly allowed.

¶17

wp 13939.25.odt

¶18

¶19

This Court do not find any reason to interfere in the conclusion drawn by Trial Court. The discretion exercised appears to be in tune with the object and scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure code. In result, writ petition sans

¶20

merit, hence dismissed.

¶21

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

¶22

AAA/-

Vitthal Rambhau Patil and Others v. Rajesh Shenu Wagh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Rambhau Patil and Others v. Rajesh Shenu Wagh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nitesh Shivaji Ingle vs the Divisional Commissioner Chh. Sambhajinagar and Others

Janardhan Aatmaram Jadhav and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prashant Damodhar Thorat and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Shinde and Sons Thr Its Authorised Partner vs Executive Director Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation

Madhavrao Appa Adhane Died Thr Lrs Kashibai Madhavrao Adhane Died and Others vs Kamalbai Bandu Adhane and Others

Shamrao Shahadu Patil and Others vs Dilawar Husain Tadavi and Others