Bhupendra VS Homraj

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

A.P.BHANGALE
Bhupendra – Appellant
Versus
Homraj – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr.A.M.Ghare, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.R.M.Pande, Advocate

JUDGMENT

A.P. Bhangale, J.— Heard.

Admit the appeal on following substantial question of law.

Whether the courts below erred in law by not appointing the Court Commissioner considering the said dispute of boundary of the suit land and alleged encroachment over portion of the suit land?

2. This appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No.24/2012 which came to be dismissed by learned Principal District Judge, Gondia. The appeal arose out of Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2007 in a suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction which was dismissed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia. The plaintiff had also claimed possession of the portion of suit land encroached upon by the defendant.

3. Facts briefly appeared from record are as under.

The unsuccessful plaintiff (present appellant) claimed as owner of plot Nos.3 and 4, Khasara No.58/9, 59/9, admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. bearing Thak No. 76 situated at Mouza Gondia. According to appellant/plaintiff, he was serving in Chhindwara at Madhya Pradesh and was unable to look after the suit property and for that purpose, he was requested one Puranlal Turkar. It was the case of the plaintiff that