Bombay High Court
Smt. Asha Waradmal Wadhwani, ... vs Parvatabai Sahebrao Theng And 6 ... on 28 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp6948.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6948 OF 2014
Smt. Asha Waradmal Wadhwani,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
through Power of Attorney Holder
Mukesh Wardmal Wadhwani, ig
Aged - Major, Occ. - Agriculturist &
Business, R/o Ward No.8, Chikhali,
Tahsil - Chikhali, District - Buldana. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Parvatabai Sahebrao Theng,
Aged about 63 years, Occ.- Business,
R/o Gandhinagar, Ward No.6,
Chikhali, Tahsil - Chikhali, District-
Buldana.
2) Sou. Meena w/o Sunil Deshmukh,
Aged - Major, Occ. - Household,
R/o Nandipeth, Near Municipal Council,
Washim, Tahsil - Washim, District -
Washim.
3) Sou. Nanda w/o Vinod Mapari,
Aged - Major, Occ.- Household,
R/o Pinpalkhuta, Tahsil - Lonar,
District - Buldana.
4) Shri Vitthal s/o Sahebrao Theng,
Aged - Major, Occ.- Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:25:05 :::
2 wp6948.14
5) Shri Uddhao s/o Sahebrao Theng,
Aged - Major, Occ.- Agriculturist,
Nos.4 and 5, R/o Gandhinagar,
Ward No.6, Chikhali, Tahsil - Chikhali,
District - Buldana.
6) Shri Ashok s/o Ramdhan Sharma,
Aged - Major, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o Ward No.23, Chikhali, Tahsil-
Chikhali, District - Buldana.
7) Md. Sajid Md. Majid,
Aged - Major, Occ.- Agriculturist,
C/o Vidarbha Medical Square,
Babu Lodge, Chikhali, Tahsil-Chikhali,
District - Buldana. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri K.P. Sadavarte, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the respondent No.7,
None for the other respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 28
th JUNE, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri K.P. Sadavarte, Advocate for the petitioner and
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the respondent No.7. None for the
other respondents.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3 wp6948.14
3. The petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the order passed by
the trial Court rejecting the application (Exhibit No.62) praying that
the Commissioner be appointed to carry out local investigation and
submit his report.
4. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying for decree for
declaration that he is the title holder of Gat No.219 on the basis of
registered sale-deed dated 26-05-2004. The plaintiff has prayed for
decree for declaration that the sale-deed executed in favour of the
defendant No.6 is not of Gat No.219 but it is of Gat No.234.
5. The dispute is not about encroachment over land. The
learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application observing that
the Commissioner cannot be appointed to carry out local investigation
and for collecting evidence. I do not find any illegality or perversity in
the impugned order.
6. The petition is dismissed. The parties to bear their own
costs.
JUDGE
adgokar
