Arjun Vishnu Choudhari vs Sahebrao Gajaba Choudhari And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5775 Bom

                                     {1}                               wp374-16

 drp
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2016

 Arjun s/o Vishnu Choudhari                                     PETITIONER
 Age - 68 years, Occ - Agriculture
 R/o Nandurkhi (Bk), Taluka - Rahata
 District - Ahmednagar

           VERSUS

 1.       Sahebrao s/o Gajaba Choudhari,                   RESPONDENTS
          Age - 70 years, Occ - Agriculture
          R/o Nandurkhi Bk, Taluka - Rahata
          District - Ahmednagar

 2.       Deelip s/o Kisan Wakchaure
          Age - 42 years, Occ - Agriculture

 3.       Jalindar s/o Kisan Wakchaure,
          Age - 44 years, Occ - Agriculture

 4.       Shankar Dada Dabhade
          Deceased through is LRs

          4A.     Dattatraya s/o Shankar Dabhade
                  Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture

          4B.     Vithal s/o Shankar Dabhade
                  Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture

          4C.     Namdeo s/o Shankar Dabhade
                  Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture

          4D.     Jalindar s/o Shankar Dabhade
                  Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture

 5.       Parvatabai Shankar Dabhade
          Age - Major, Occ - Household & Agriculture

          Respondents No. 2 to 5 all
          R/o Nandurkhi Bk, Taluka - Rahata
          District - Ahmednagar




::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:30:36 :::
                                       {2}                             wp374-16


                                 .......

Mr. V. C. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent No.1 .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned

advocates for the appearing parties finally with consent.

2. Petitioner is defendant No. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 158

of 2008 filed by present respondent No. 1 for removal of

encroachment initially claiming the same to be 10 are, now after

amendment the demand has been reduced to 7 are.

3. After hearing learned advocates it transpires that the

petitioner is a purchaser of property from defendant No. 3 during

pendency of suit. Before he had been made a party to the suit,

there had been an order for appointment of court commissioner

in 2010 and the commissioner accordingly had carried out

measurement of blocks No. 445/2, 441, 445/1 and adjacent land

holders.

4. There has been no challenge to said measurement by any

{3} wp374-16

of the then parties to the suit. It is now sought to be contended

that petitioner had not been party to the suit while measurement

was carried out.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the court has

categorically observed that while measurement through court

commissioner was taking place all the defendants were present

and have given statements before the surveyor.

6. In the circumstances, it does not appear that there is any

fault which can be found with the impugned order. The court has

appropriately considered that application Exhibit-137 by added

defendant No. 5 in the circumstances has no substance and the

same appears to have been rejected. Said order does not

deserve to be meddled with at this stage.

7. Writ petition, as such, stands rejected. Rule stands

discharged.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/wp374-16