Bombay High Court

M/S. SANVI DEVELOPERS THR. ITS PARTNERS AND ANRversusSACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DODKE AND ORS

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The appointment of a Court Commissioner for joint measurement of disputed land is proper and does not warrant interference.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a February 24, 2026 order of the Civil Judge, Pune, which appointed a Court Commissioner to measure and demarcate the disputed properties in an injunction suit. They argued that the suit sought only an injunction and did not request removal of encroachment or possession, so the appointment was unnecessary and prejudicial. The High Court examined the plaint and noted that the core dispute concerned boundary encroachment, requiring a joint measurement to resolve the controversy. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that appointing a local commissioner is appropriate for demarcation matters. Consequently, the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a Court Commissioner can be appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for demarcation in an injunction suit lacking a prayer for possession.
Whether such appointment causes prejudice to the defendant.
Whether the trial court erred in ordering an independent surveyor despite an existing cadastral survey report.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order XXVI Rule 9

Subjects

injunction
boundary dispute
court commissioner
demarcation
Code of Civil Procedure
supervisory jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                     907-WP4213-2026.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 4213 OF 2026

                      M/s. Sanvi Developers Thr. Its Partners And
                      Anr.                                                ...Petitioners
                                        Versus
                      Sachin Shivajirao Dodke And Ors                  …Respondents


SANTOSH               Mr. Vivek V5ay Salunke, for the Petitioners.
SUBHASH               Mr. Viraj Hake, for the Respondents.
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                              CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Date: 2026.04.10
11:22:22 +0530
                                                      DATED:     8th APRIL, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.


                      2.   The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 24 th

                      February, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune,

                      whereby the TILR, Haveli, Pune, has been appointed as a Court

                      Commissioner to measure and demarcate the suit properties of

                      the plaintiff and defendant and submit a report to the Court.


                      3.   Mr. Salunke, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

                      submitted that the suit is instituted for injunction simpliciter.

                      There is no prayer for removal of encroachment and recovery of

                      possession and, therefore, the learned Judge could not have

                      ordered the appointment of the Court Commissioner.         It was


                                                     1/3
                                              907-WP4213-2026.DOC

also submitted that the defendant – petitioner had carried out

measurement of the properties and a report of Cadestral

Surveyor is on record. It was the claim of the plaintiff that the

said measurement is not correct and the plaintiff intended to @le

an appeal against the said measurement. In that view of the

matter, the learned Judge erred in holding that the appointment

of an independent surveyor would not cause prejudice to the

defendants.


4.   Upon perusal of the averments in the plaint, this Court

@nds that the plaintiff has speci@cally asserted that the

defendant has committed encroachment over a portion of the

plaintiffs property.     The trial Court has recorded that the

essential dispute between the parties is over the demarcation of

the land. As the dispute has arisen between the parties over the

boundaries of their respective properties, a joint measurement

of the properties is necessary for elucidating the matter in

controversy.

5.   A useful reference in this context can be made to a

judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Waqf Board

vs. Shanti Sarup1 wherein the Supreme Court has emphasised

that in the case of demarcation of the disputed land, it is


1    (2008) 8 SCC 671.
                                2/3
                                               907-WP4213-2026.DOC

appropriate for the Court to direct the investigation by

appointing a local Commissioner as provided under Order XXVI

Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6.   As the impugned order has the prospect of elucidating the

matter in controversy and assisting the Court in arriving at a

just decision of the case, in the exercise of its supervisory

jurisdiction, this Court does not @nd any reason to interfere

with the impugned order.


7.   The petition thus stands dismissed.

                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…