JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard. 2. The issue involved in the case is about encroachment. The fact of encroachment can be proved by oral evidence of the plaintiffs and other witnesses. The extent of encroachment, however, cannot be proved in absence of actual measurements and evidence of the measurer. Admittedly, in the present case, measurement has been carried out, however, the person, who has carried out the same, was not examined. An application was made under Rule 27 of Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code for examining the said witness, which was rejected. Hence this petition. 3. The question, that arises, is whether the prayer for examining such witness by taking recourse to Rule 27 of Order 41 should be granted. What is vivid from record is that in absence of proof of measurement, it is convenient for the Court to decide the suit in negative, namely holding that the extent of measurement is not proved, since the measurement map is an admitted document. 4. It is a well settled legal position that extent of measurement cannot be proved by anyone, except by one who has actually measured the alleged encroachment. Same view is taken by this Court in reported Judgment in case of Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi Vs. Dinkar Yashwant Patil [ 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 138 : 2003(4) ALL MR 1083]. Any further Land detailed discussion on this point is wholly unnecessary. 5. Thus, for effective adjudication and doing justice between the parties, it is necessary for the learned Court below to have the evidence of the measurer on hand. Deciding the case on oral evidence other than of measurement would amount to approaching the case with extreme technicality. The party, who failed to punctually cause attendance of such witness, can be made liable to pay the costs, and prejudice to the respondents due to delay can be thereby mitigated. 6. This Court, therefore, finds that for effective adjudication of the case and for delivery of judgment for doing justice between the parties, it is necessary to allow the plaintiffs to examine the witnesses. 7. In the result, order impugned is reversed and set aside on conditions. This Court, therefore, passes following order :- [a] Order dated 18th October, 2005 [Annex. 1 to the petition] passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 1995 is set aside. . 7. In the result, order impugned is reversed and set aside on conditions. This Court, therefore, passes following order :- [a] Order dated 18th October, 2005 [Annex. 1 to the petition] passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 1995 is set aside. . [b] Application [Exh.12] is allowed on the condition that the petitioners pay to the respondents by depositing in the Trial Court a sum of Rs.3,000-00 [Rupees Three Thousand Only] within four weeks from today. [c] Respondents are permitted to withdraw the said amount. [d] Deposit of the said amount shall be the condition precedent. If compliance is not done, this order shall stand recalled and the Appellate Court shall proceed as before. Rule is made absolute as above. Petition allowed.