1 wp1726.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1726/2017
Ms. Nazia D/o Mohd. Arif,
C/o Mohd. Arif S/o Abdul Shakoor,
R/o 102, Girish Heights, Near Bharat
Talkies, Kamptee Road, Nagpur, through
her Power of Attorney Mr. Mohd. Arif
S/o Abdul Shakoor, aged 62 Yrs.,
Occu. Business R/o Kamptee Road,
Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
Mahendra Kumar Javery Family Trust
alias M.K. Javery Family Trust, a Private Family
Trust, having its office at Indra Saryu, Javery
Complex, Chindwara Road, Chhaoni, Nagpur,
through its Trustee Mr. Randhir Javery / Mr.
Viradh Javery. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri N.H. Shams, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 15.11.2017. ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri N.H. Shams, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the respondent.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:54:47 :::
2 wp1726.17
3. The petitioner / original defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exh. No.29) filed by her under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that Commissioner be appointed to measure the entire land and also to measure the land in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant.
4. Though prima facie the observation of the learned trial Judge that the defendant is seeking to collect the evidence through Court Commissioner appears to be proper, one relevant aspect is overlooked by the learned trial Judge while considering the application (Exh. No.29). The plaintiff is relying on a copy prepared by the office of city survey and defendant also relies on a map prepared by city survey and there is substantial difference in these two maps. The learned Advocate for the petitioner / defendant has pointed out an order passed by the City Survey Officer on 30 th May, 2016 recording that the map prepared pursuant to the measurement undertaken on 25th January, 2016 in case No.1702/2016 and Case No.1710/2016 on 5 th February, 2016 should be treated as cancelled. In these facts, I find that the prayer made by the defendant is justified and the report which would be submitted by the Court Commissioner would be of valuable assistance to the Court for deciding the controversy.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:54:47 :::
3 wp1726.17 5. Hence the following order: (i) The impugned order is set aside. (ii) The prayer of the defendant for appointment of Court Commissioner is granted. (iii) The application (Exh. No.29) is allowed accordingly. (iv) The Superintendent of Land Records shall cause measurement of the
property in question through an Officer / Surveyor above the rank of the Surveyor / Surveyors who had carried out the measurement earlier.
(v) The defendants shall deposit the required amount with the Superintendent of Land Records within 15 days.
(vi) The Superintendent of Land Records shall submit the report on the basis of the measurement carried out under his instructions.
(vii) The report shall be submitted to the trial Court within two months.
Rule made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 00:54:47 :::