Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77174 (BOM)

SHRI NITIN NARAYAN MALI v. SHRI VISHWANATH BALARAM MALI

WP/15685/2022 · 2025-11-19

Gauri Godse

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

89-15685-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15685 OF 2022 Shri Nitin Narayan Mali … Petitioner vs. Shri Vishwanath Balaram Mali … Respondent Mr. Sagar Anant Joshi for the Petitioner CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the order passed by the trial court refusing to appoint the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records as the Court Commissioner to conduct the measurement of land belonging to the plaintiff. The suit is filed for the removal of encroachment. The trial court therefore held that the boundaries of the suit property and the alleged encroachment are described by the plaintiff within the plaintiff’s property. 2. Since there is no boundary dispute, there was no requirement to conduct a joint measurement to settle the boundaries. Even in the Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2025.11.20 13:54:41 +0530 89-15685-2022.doc application filed by the plaintiff, there is no prayer for carrying out a joint survey of the land belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, I see no reason for permitting the appointment of the Court Commissioner at this stage. No fault can be found in the impugned order rejecting such a prayer. The suit is still pending for recording evidence. Hence, it would be the plaintiff’s responsibility to lead evidence to support his contentions. At this stage, the appointment of the Court Commissioner cannot be permitted. 3. I therefore see no reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, it is clarified that at the appropriate stage, if the appropriate application is filed by the petitioner or respondent in the trial court, the same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, subject to the aforesaid clarification. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2