Bombay High Court
Punatri S/O Godhari Pardhi vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 March, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-wp6827.14.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.6827 OF 2014
Punatri s/o. Godhari Pardhi,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Yerli, Tah. Tumsar, Distt. Bhandara. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Bhandara.
2. Tahsildar, Tumsar,
Tah. Tumsar, Distt. Bhandara.
3. Shri Baburao s/o. Nanaji Pardhi,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Yerli, Tah. Tumsar, Distt. Bhandara. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. K.S. Motwani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Balpande, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S.Y. Jambhulkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
nd MARCH, 2016.
DATE : 22
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
J-wp6827.14.odt 2/4
2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
legality and correctness of the order dated 16 th September, 2013
passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara thereby
rejecting the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for directing joint
measurement of Gat No.600 and Gat No.594 by Taluka Inspector of
Land Record (T.I.L.R.).
4. It is seen from the impugned order that the learned Civil
Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the identical
application filed earlier by the petitioner vide Exh.-58 was allowed
by the same Court and the report of the T.I.L.R. was also available
in the suit. Learned Civil Judge has observed that when the joint
measurement by T.I.L.R. was sought by the petitioner and was also
allowed by the Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to once
again approach the Court and seek the same direction. I do not see
any perversity or arbitrariness in the reasoning so adopted by the
learned Civil Judge in rejecting the application. Just because the
report submitted by the T.I.L.R. is not acceptable completely to the
petitioner-plaintiff, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be allowed to
seek from the Court yet another joint measurement. If this is to be
J-wp6827.14.odt 3/4
allowed, there would be multiple reports of T.I.L.R. and the chain
of filing of a multiple reports would go on till the time the
petitioner succeeds in obtaining a favourable report. The purpose
of joint measurement through an expert and who is capable of
submitting an impartial report in the matter is to assist the Court to
do justice between the parties. The purpose is not to assist just one
of the parties to the suit. If the petitioner-plaintiff is of the view
that the report is incorrect or biased, the petitioner can prove it to
be so by adducing necessary evidence. If the petitioner succeeds in
doing so, the trial Court would certainly have power in that case to
order yet another joint measurement and submission of
measurement report by the expert. However, at this stage, there is
no reason for me to make any interference with the impugned order
and allow the petitioner to produce on record yet another report of
T.I.L.R.
5. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this
petition. Writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed
accordingly.
6. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
J-wp6827.14.odt 4/4
okMksns
