JUDGMENT Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants. RCS No. 361 of 2009 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession of the encroached land, which is pending before the Trial Court. A T.I.L.R. had earlier carried out the measurement of the suit land on 18/08/2009 and had drawn a map based on the said measurement, in the presence of both the parties, which was placed on record in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has led oral evidence and the same has accordingly been recorded. The evidence of the plaintiff/respondent is now closed and the stage is for the defendants to step into the witness box. The petitioners had cross-examined the T.I.L.R. on his measurement report dated 25/08/2009 and the map. 3. An application dated 11/09/2013 was filed by the petitioners seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for carrying out a fresh measurement of the suit property and drawing a map accordingly. By submitting its say on 28/10/2013, the respondent opposed the application. By the impugned order dated 21/01/2014, the said application came to be rejected. 4. The petitioners contend that the impugned order does not reflect any reasons. The same is a cryptic order. The Trial Court has failed to apply its mind to the application filed by the petitioners and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 5. Reliance is placed upon the reported judgments of this Court as follow:- (a) Bento Antonio Gomes alias Antonio Bento Gomes vs. Rosario Salvador Carneiro and others, 2014(4) Mh. L.J. 366 (b) Siddharth Sambhaji Survase and another vs. Air India Charters Ltd. 2014(4) Mh. L.J. 374 (c) Manikrao Ramji Chawake vs. Ashok Ambadas Gawande and another, 2014(2) Mh. L.J. 840 (d) Prerna Shikshan Mandal, Chandrapur and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 (2) Mh. L.J. 843 (e) Bhupendra S/o Bhagwat Turkar vs. Homraj S/o Zituji Meshram, 2014(4) Mh. L.J. 231 (f) Indira Pragati Shikshan Sanstha, Mindala, Chandrapur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014(4) Mh. L.J. 235 (g) Malhar S/o Ganpat Bokerphod and others vs. Shivaji S/o Vishwanath Pawal, 2014(4) Mh. L.J. 237 (h) Kashinath Chindhuji Shastri vs. Haribhau Nathuji Bawanthade, 2004(2) Mh. L.J. 724 (i) Habibkhan S/o Inauttalakhan and others vs. Waman S/o Govind Rathod and others, 2012(2) Mh. L.J. 235 (g) Malhar S/o Ganpat Bokerphod and others vs. Shivaji S/o Vishwanath Pawal, 2014(4) Mh. L.J. 237 (h) Kashinath Chindhuji Shastri vs. Haribhau Nathuji Bawanthade, 2004(2) Mh. L.J. 724 (i) Habibkhan S/o Inauttalakhan and others vs. Waman S/o Govind Rathod and others, 2012(2) Mh. L.J. 541 (j) Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and others, 2008(8) SCC 671 (Supreme Court of India) 6. Mr. Dighe, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not opposed by filing a counter claim by the petitioners/defendants. The T.I.L.R. who is a Revenue Officer, has already carried out a measurement and has accordingly drawn a map. These documents have been placed on record and the petitioners are in receipt of the same. 7. The respondent/plaintiff led evidence and examined the T.I.L.R. as well. The petitioners have cross examined the T.I.L.R. at length. The petitioners are now to lead oral evidence by stepping into the witness box. The application filed before the Trial Court neither sets out any specific reason as to why a Court Commissioner needs to be appointed nor does it justify the contentions of the petitioners that the report and map produced by the T.I.L.R. are not trustworthy. 8. The respondent, in its reply, has categorically pointed out that the petitioners have not pleaded about any counter claim in its written statement as well as no independent counter claim has been placed on record. When the boundaries and the suit property have already been measured and a map has been drawn, the application was rightly rejected. Cross-examination conducted by the petitioners thereby putting the T.I.L.R.'s testimony to scrutiny, also supports the rejection of the application. 9. The judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, have crystallized the law that a Government employee, in the form of a T.I.L.R. or D.I.L.R. can be appointed as a Court Commissioner for carrying out measurement of the boundaries (suit property) and for drawing a proper map based on the revenue records and in the presence of the litigating parties. However, the facts of this case indicate that the measurement has already been carried out by the T.I.L.R. and a map has been placed on record. The ratio laid down in the above referred judgments does not suggest that the suit property should be subjected to measurement on multiple occasions. 10. Mr. However, the facts of this case indicate that the measurement has already been carried out by the T.I.L.R. and a map has been placed on record. The ratio laid down in the above referred judgments does not suggest that the suit property should be subjected to measurement on multiple occasions. 10. Mr. Dighe, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrarao S/o Hanumantrao Wable vs. Dhondu S/o Fula Patil, 2012(2) ALL MR 267. The facts emerging from the said case are that the T.I.L.R. had already measured the suit property and a map was drawn, as like in the case before me. Thereafter, at the instance of a litigating party, a Court Commissioner was appointed. Interfering with the said order, this Court has taken a view that once such measurement of suit land is carried out and the map is on record and moreso when the T.I.L.R. has been cross examined, the order passed by the Trial Court was unsustainable. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 read thus:- (8) I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that earlier, there was measurement of the suit property, at the instance of the plaintiff T.I.L.R. was appointed to measure the land. Not only this, but the T.I.L.R. carried out the measurement and same is placed on record. The T.I.L.R. Is examined by the plaintiff and is also cross examined by the defendant. At this stage, when the suit is riped for final hearing, an application filed by the plaintiff came to be entertained and the trial court ordered fresh measurement in the matter. (9) In the present case, in fact, earlier measurement is carried out by the competent authority i.e. T.I.L.R. In the case of Vijay, 2009(4) ALL MR 601 (supra), on which heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, cadastral surveyor carried out earlier measurement and this Court found it fit to direct the re-measurement by the authority of higher rank, namely, District Inspector of Land Records. However, in the present case, already measurement is carried out by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, who is in charge of the office at Taluka level, and is also a gazetted officer. 11. I have gone through the impugned order. However, in the present case, already measurement is carried out by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, who is in charge of the office at Taluka level, and is also a gazetted officer. 11. I have gone through the impugned order. Though the said order does not reflect the submissions of the plaintiff that the boundaries are already measured and the map has already been filed on record coupled with the fact that the T.I.L.R. has also been cross-examined by the petitioners, the conclusions drawn in this backdrop that the measurement of the defendants' land cannot be carried out, do not appear to be erroneous or perverse. 12. Only because another view could be possible, would not mean that the impugned order deserves to be interfered with in the writ and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, as is the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, reported at AIR 1964 SC 477 and Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, reported at 2003(6) SCC 682. 13. In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted since the petition is devoid of merits. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.