1

Order below Exh.5 in R.C.S. No.29/2022
(CNR No.MHAH170001902022)

The   plaintiff   has   filed   this   application   under   Order

XXVI  Rule  9  of  the  Code  of Civil Procedure  for appointment  of
Court Commissioner.   

2.  The plaintiff contends that  this suit is filed for fixation
of   boundaries   and   removal   of   encroachment.  The   suit   property
mentioned   in   para   1   of   the   plaint   is   jointly   purchased   by   the
plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 4 on 23/3/2011 vide Sale Deed
no.1595/2011 admeasuring about 0H.25R out of 0H 90R in Gat
No. 2/1. The plaintiff states that out of this area he is in actual
possession of 0H.05R which is  having boundaries to the East Gat
No.2/1 remaining property in this gat number of Defendant no.1
to 4,   to the South Rui Road, to the West property of defendant
no.5, to the North the plaintiff’s property in Gat no. 3 and Property
of Defendant No. 6 in Gat No. 4. 

3. The plaintiff further contends that the rough schedule
map is filed along­with the plaint and as shown in the map the five
parts vide five North ­ South boundaries were made in the suit
property. Out of this suit property the plaintiff’s area is of West
Side   admeasuring   about   0H.05R   which   is   in   ownership   and
possession of the plaintiff since the execution of sale  deed. The
defendant no.2 broken the north­south bandh/boundary between
him and the plaintiff  many a times and has encroached upon the
area of the plaintiff in the suit property. When the plaintiff carried
 2

out   measurement   through   private   surveyor   his   area   was   shown

less than the area  of  0H.05R. The plaintiff requested defendant
no.1 to 4 for carrying out measurement of the suit property but
they   denied.   Therefore   the   plaintiff   prayed   for     appointment  of
T.I.L.R. for measuring his area in the suit property.

4. The   defendants   no.1   to   4   have   filed   say   on   this

application at Exh.13. Defendants No. 1 to 4 denied the contents
of   the   plaint   and   application.   They   stated   that  the   plaintiff   has
made   pleading    that  there  is partition  in the  suit property but
there   is   no   such   partition.   The   suit   is   bad   for   the   proper
description of the suit property in view of Order VII Rule 3, rough
map is also not filed therefore suit is not tenable. The property is
not divided since the sale deed, the suit property is in common
ownership   and   possession   and   the   encroachment   allegations   by
the plaintiff are misleading the Court. The application be rejected. 

5. Perused   the   record.   Heard   learned   Advocate   for   the

plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff
reiterated   contentions   from   the   application   and   added   that   the
plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 4 are brothers. The property is
divided   and   separate   house   properties   are   built   by   them   in   the
jointly purchased suit properties. The ld. Advocate for the plaintiff
pointed out the documents filed in support of the application. 

6. Ld. Advocate for the defendants no.1 to 4 argued that
the suit property is in common possession therefore  there is no
 3

question of encroachment. Till date no complaint is made or no
notice   is   sent   by   the   plaintiff   to   defendants   no.1   to   4   as   to
encroachment. It is nowhere mentioned in the plaint that the suit
property   is   divided   separately   therefore   there   is   no   need   of
measurement.   The   suit   be   dismissed   on   the   ground   of   non
compliance   of   Order   VII   Rule   3.     The   documents     filed   by   the
plaintiff such as housetax and   water tax receipts are not of the
defendants no.1 to 4. 

7. This suit is filed for fixation of boundaries and removal
of   encroachment.   There   is   dispute   about   boundaries   of   suit
property of the plaintiff. The first objection by the defendants is
the description of suit property is not proper. On perusal of the
plaint para no. 1 it appears that the plaintiff has mentioned the
suit property as  jointly purchased by the plaintiff and defendant
no.1   to   4   on   23/3/2011   vide   Sale   Deed   no.1595/2011
admeasuring about 0H.25R out of 0H 90R in Gat No. 2/1. The
plaintiff states that out of this area he is in actual possession of
0H.05R is   having boundaries to the East Gat No.2/1 remaining
property in this gat number of Defendant no.1 to 4,  to the South
Rui Road, to the West property of defendant no.5, to the North the
plaintiff’s property in Gat no.3 and Property of Defendant no.6 in
Gat no.4. Thus on perusal of the plaint para no.1 it appears that
the plaintiff has described the suit property with the gat numbers
and boundaries. 

8. The second objection is the property is not divided and
is   in   common   possession   between   the   plaintiff   and   defendants
 4

since the sale deed. The plaintiff has filed documents alongwith
exhibit   16   to   show   the   plaintiff  and  defendants  are   in  separate
possession. The sale deed filed by the plaintiff shows the plaintiff
and defendants no. 1 to 4 have purchased the property from two
Gat   numbers.   From   Gat   no.   3   they   have   purchased   area
admeasuring   0H.05R   and   from   Gat   no.   2/1   area   admeasuring
0H.25R. The plaintiff has filed house and water tax receipts of the
year 2022­2023 issued by Grampanchayat Nighoj, Tal.Rahata of
the   plaintiff   and   defendants   no.   1   to   4.   These   receipts   show
different house property numbers of the plaintiff and defendants
no. 1 to 4. The plaintiff house property number is 760 and 616,
615, 616/1, 645 are house property numbers of the defendants
no.1 to 4 respectively. The plaintiff has also filed the certificate
issued by the  Grampanchayat  Nighoj showing boundaries of his
house property no.760. Alongwith exhibit 18 the plaintiff has filed
extract   no.8   of   Grampanchayat   Nighoj   of   the   year   2022­2023
showing   the   separate   house   properties   and   description   of
construction of the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 4. On perusal
of   all   these   documents   it   appears   that   though   the   plaintiff   and
defendants no.1 to 4 have purchased the suit property jointly but
they are in separate possession in the suit property. Moreover the
suit itself is filed for fixation of boundaries by the plaintiff. 

9. The defendants no. 1 to 4 have also taken objection
that rough sketch map as to encroachment is also not filed with
the plaint in view of Order VII Rule 3 and have stated for dismissal
of the suit on this ground. On perusal of the record it appears that,
the plaintiff has filed rough schedule map alongwith the plaint but
 5

has  not  filed  rough  sketch map showing encroachment.   On this

point   Hon’ble   Bombay   High   Court   in  Dattatraya   Kashinath
Mandekar and Another vs Changdeo Dagdu Khule and Others
(2018)4Mah   LJ   584  observed   that   it   is   curable   defect   in
paragraph 8, 13, 19 and also issued directions in para 21 of this
Judgment as follows :  

“ 8. The Honourable Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that if

certain defects can be cured before it is too late, the trial Court with the
intention of doing complete justice, can give such an opportunity to a
litigant rather than letting the litigation progress and a reversal would
cause a severe loss of time, money and energy to the litigating sides.”

“ 13. It is, therefore, obvious that the Honourable Apex Court concluded
that the default or carelessness of the litigating sides would not absolve
the trial Court of it's obligations while scrutinizing the plaint. By pointing
out the omission on the part of the plaintiff, the trial Court should have
insisted on a map of the immovable property, which becomes a part of
the plaint and subject-matter of suit under Order VII, Rule 3 of the Civil
Procedure Code. I, therefore, find that it would be an obligation of this
Court to bring this matter, specifically, to the notice of all the trial Courts
in this case.”

“19. As has been concluded by this Court in Mohana Naik (supra) and
Caterina (supra), that such a defect deserves to be cured and for which
purpose the Second Appeals were allowed and the matters were
remitted to the trial Court after a litigating journey of about 9 to 10 years.
In my view, such a situation can be averted in this case as the stage in
the suit is now for recording of evidence post framing of an additional
issue. So also the suit is of the year 2011 and it cannot be said that it is
more than ten years' old. Nevertheless, the rigours of the contesting
defendants can be reduced by imposing costs upon these two plaintiffs.”

“ 21. Considering the above and in the light of the observations of the
Honourable Apex Court in Pratibha Singh case (supra), in the underlined
portion of paragraph No. 14, reproduced above, I deem it appropriate to
direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to place a copy of this
order before each learned Principal District Judge in this State so as to
bring to the notice of each Judicial Officer under the respective Judicial
 6

district that a proper scrutiny of the suit shall be performed by the

concerned office of the Courts and in the event of a sketch map being
required to be annexed to the plaints, depending upon the cause of
action in due deference to Order VII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code,
the trial Court shall place such suits in objection category and shall not
proceed with the said suits, until there is a proper compliance of Order
VII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code to avoid further complications as
are visible in the judgments cited in this proceeding.”

10. In   view   of   the   directions   of   Hon’ble   Bombay   High

Court in abovementioned authority that the default or carelessness
of the litigating sides would not absolve the Court of its obligation
while scrutinizing the plaint. It is settled law that it is a curable
defect and suit cannot be dismissed on this ground. Therefore as
per   the   directions   of   Hon’ble   High   Court   instead   of   letting   the
litigation   progress   without   such   compliance   the   plaintiff   in   this
case is directed to comply at the earliest with Order VII Rule 3 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.

11. Since this suit is filed for fixation of boundaries and
removal of encroachment, appointment of Court Commissioner is
necessary. The oral evidence would not be sufficient to decide the
suit on merits. The report filed by Court Commissioner will enable
this Court to decide the suit. No prejudice will be caused to the
defendants   no.   1   to   4   if   Court   Commissioner   is   appointed   to
measure the suit property of the plaintiff and submit the report.
Hence I pass the following order :
 7

O R D E R

1.  Application is allowed.

2. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Rahata is appointed as
Court Commissioner.  

3. The Court Commissioner is directed to visit and measure the
suit property   mentioned in para 1 of the plaint i.e. Gat No.2/1
area   0H.25R,   and   the   area   in   actual   possession   of   the   plaintiff
0H.05R as per the boundaries mentioned in para 1 of the plaint
situated in the village Nighoj, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

4. The Court Commissioner shall fix the boundaries and ascertain
encroachment   if   any   over   the   suit   property  of   the   plaintiff
0H.05R and shall clearly describe it with its exact measurement in
the map and the report.

5.   The   Court   Commissioner   shall   prepare   map   of   measurement

and submit it along with final report.

6. The Court Commissioner shall carry out the work of commission
after giving notice in writing to the plaintiff and the defendants
and adjacent owners at the cost of plaintiff.

7.   The   plaintiff   and   defendants   are   directed   to   appear   as   per

intimation given by the Court Commissioner.
 8

8. The plaintiff and defendants are directed to supply all necessary
documents required by the Court Commissioner for carrying out
the work of commission.

9. The Court Commissioner shall complete the work of commission
and submit his report along with map within two months from the
date of this order.

10. The plaintiff is directed to deposit necessary fees and charges
in the office of T.I.L.R. Rahata.

11.   Issue   letter   to   Taluka   Inspector   of   Land   Records,   Rahata

accordingly.
  Sahil Digitally signed
by Sahil Salim
Mulani

     Salim Date:

Mulani 2022.12.19
13:16:44 +0530

Date : 17/12/2022       (S. S. Mulani)
rd 
Place : Rahata              3 Jt. C. J. J. D., Rahata