WP/12971/2023 of NAVNATH VISHNU MADKE AND ANOTHER Vs UDDHAV ANKUSH MADKE AND OTHERS

907-WP-12971-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 WRIT PETITION NO. 12971 OF 2023 Navnath Vishnu Madke And Another VERSUS Uddhav Ankush Madke And Others ….. Mr. Dhananjay Mane h/f Mr. P . A. Baharat, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. Y. V. Kakade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 13.01.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Mane for the Petitioners and the Counsel Mr. Kakade for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By way of the present petition, the Petitioners are assailin g the common order dated 21.08.2023 passed below Exhibits – 37 and 45 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shevgaon in RCS No.237/2015, whereby the application below Exhibit – 37 filed by Original Plaintiff / Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and application b elow Exhibit – 45 filed by Original Defendant Nos.1 to 3 came to be allowed. 3. The learned Counsel Mr. Mane for the Petitioners submits t hat initially an application below Exhibit - 15 came to be allowed, whereby the learned Trial Court directed the Court Commissioner to submit a report. Pursuant thereto, the report was submitted. There after, another application was filed pointing out that the said repo rt was not 1 2026:BHC-AUG:1185 907-WP-12971-2023.odt proper, and consequently, an application below Exhibit - 37 came to be filed. He submits that once the earlier application was already allowed and the report was submitted, the learned Trial Court ought not have entertained multiple applications on the same grounds. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel Mr. Kakade for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learne d Trial Court as well as the copy of plaint and other reco rd placed along with the present petition. The suit is filed for removal e ncroachment and fixation of boundaries. When such a dispute arises, the le arned Trial Court is justified in appointing a Court Commissione r for proper adjudication. 6. Initially, the application for appointment of Court Commissio ner was allowed and a report was submitted. Subsequently, on an objection that the report was not proper, another applicati on came to be filed and the same was entertained by the learned Trial C ourt. Considering the nature of the suit and the dispute involv ed, merely because a fresh application Exhibit – 37 was filed for obtainin g a proper report, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the Petitioners. The Petitioners would get an opportunity to cross-examine the Cadastral Surveyor as well as the Plaintiffs. 7. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the impugned o rder warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. 8. However, considering the fact that the suit is of 2015, and as both the learned Counsels jointly request for expeditiou s disposal, the 2 907-WP-12971-2023.odt learned Trial Court is directed to decide Regular Civ il Suit No.237/2015 within a period of one year from today. 9. In view thereof, writ petition is disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/January-2026 3