Haribhau Ramchandra Punde and Anr. vs Shamrao Maruti Shinde and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Haribhau Ramchandra Punde and Anr. vs Shamrao Maruti Shinde and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed: the Impugned Order dated November 21, 2023 is quashed and set aside; the Learned Judge below is directed to appoint a Court Commissioner to conduct the measurements and file a report, with the measurements to be completed within four weeks from the date of upload of the order on the Court's website.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur rightly refused the Petitioner's application for appointment of a commissioner to take measurements for purposes of adjudicating the suit alleging encroachment +1 more

Court's answer

It is apparent that the Application made by the Petitioner is essentially for measurements, which would enable the Court to be presented with documentary evidence to help it adjudicate the Suit.

Ratio / Principle

The appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct the measurements is a relevant and valid prayer in the circumstances of the Suit.

Key takeaways

The grounds on which the prayer for appointment of a commissioner was rejected are unreasonable and arbitrary.ratio¶18
The Impugned Order is quashed and set aside; the Learned Judge below is directed to have a Court Commissioner appointed to conduct the measurements and file a report, after which adjudication of the Suit may proceed, with the measurements to be done within four weeks from the date of upload of this order on the Court's website.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8872 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.; order dated February 25, 2026) against the order dated November 21, 2023 of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur refusing appointment of a commissioner to take measurements in a suit alleging encroachment, on the footing that possession in a suit for injunction must be proved by oral or documentary evidence and cannot be delegated to a commissioner. Held: the application was essentially for measurements that would place documentary evidence before the Court; the appointment of a Court Commissioner is a relevant and valid prayer; the grounds of rejection were unreasonable and arbitrary. The Impugned Order was quashed and set aside, and the trial Judge was directed to have a Court Commissioner appointed to conduct measurements and file a report, the measurements to be completed within four weeks from upload of the order on the Court's website. None appeared for the respondents despite service; an ad-interim stay on further proceedings in the Suit was already in force.

15-WP-8872-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 8872 OF 2024 Haribhau Ramchandra Punde & Anr

…Petitioners

Versus

Shamrao Maruti Shinde & Anr …Respondents

Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, i/b Shriram Choudhari, for the Petitioners. Appearance not received for Respondents.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : February 25, 2026

ORDER :

A challenge in this Petition is to an order dated November 21, 2023 (“ Impugned Order ”) by which the Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur, has refused to have a commissioner appointed to take measurements which would form evidence for purposes of adjudicating a suit alleging encroachment. The Impugned Order proceeds on the footing that in a Suit for injunction, the question as to who is in possession is a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence either oral or documentary, to be adduced by the parties and that such function cannot be delegated to a commissioner.

ASHWINI JANARDAN VALLAKATI Digitally signed by ASHWINI JANARDANVALLAKATI Date: 2026.03.06 12:12:45 +0530

On the contrary, it is apparent that the Application made by the Petitioner is essentially for measurements, which would enable the

Page 1 of 2 February 25, 2026

Ashwini Vallakati

15-WP-8872-2024.doc

Court to be presented with documentary evidence which would help it in adjudicating the Suit.

Despite service, none appears for the Respondent. A Learned Single Judge of this Court had already granted ad-interim relief in the form of a stay on the further proceedings in the Suit pending the disposal of this Petition.

Having heard the advocate for the Petitioner, the appointment of a Court Commissioner is indeed a relevant and valid prayer that has been made. The grounds on which such prayer has been rejected are unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, the Impugned Order is hereby quashed and set aside. The Learned Judge is directed to have a Court Commissioner appointed to have the measurements conducted and to file a report after which the adjudication of the Suit may proceed. Let such measurements be done within a period of four weeks from the date of upload of this order on the website of this Court.

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

Ashwini Vallakati

Page 2 of 2 February 25, 2026