1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties, finally.

3. The petitioner herein is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff who filed R.C.S. No. 96 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chalisgaon, for possession of the encroached area. On 28.9.2007, the petitioner-defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement, denying the contentions raised by the plaintiff in the suit. On 20.09.2008, the trial court framed the issues below Exhibit 15. It appears, thereafter, affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief is filed by the respondent. The Advocate for the petitioner cross examined the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent has examined Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Chalisgaon, as his witness, on 26.8.2010 to prove the encroachment made on 23.7.2010. The said T.I.L.R. was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant, wherein it is the case of the defendant that in examination of the T.I.L.R., discrepancies occurred which show that the suit filed by the respondent is without any substance. It is the case of the petitioner tha