JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 6.8.2012, passed by the learned District Judge-I, Akot, in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2009, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 18.6.2007, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara, in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2005, whereby the suit was decreed for possession of alleged encroachment portion of 25R land out of Survey No.47/7-A admeasuring about 2.64R claimed as belonging to the plaintiff. The agricultural land is situated at village Telhara (Bk.), Taluka Telhara, District Akola. 2. The substantial question of law is to be decided, "Whether the Courts below were right in not directing re-measurement of the suit field and the adjoining lands, by following due procedure governing the measurements? 3. The grievance of Shri A.B. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that in the trial Court the plaint did not describe the disputed immovable property as required under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure even in the absence of full description as required by law in the plaint, the learned first appellate Judge and the trial Judge proceeded to decree the suit for alleged encroached portion. 4. The reference is made, by Shri A.B. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to the previous ruling by this Court, in the case of Manohar Mahadeorao Pagrut vs. Sau. Sunanda Ramdas Tharkar, reported at [2008]3 Bom CR 4 in which this Court had considered the principle in such cases in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, as quoted below, thus: “7. Normally, if the measurement is done by a cadastral surveyor for ascertaining the encroachment and at that time only both the lands are measured on the basis of permanent boundary marks or admitted boundary marks, any question of further evidence would not arise. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, when the cadastral surveyor admits that on two sides, which are, in fact, the sides of the then alleged encroachment, the boundary marks are not found. To have a correct approach for ascertaining the area of actual possession and then finding whether there was an encroachment, it is necessary that both the lands should be measured, exact dividing boundary line should be located and it can be found out whether the party, against whom encroachment is alleged, has excess land in possession. To have a correct approach for ascertaining the area of actual possession and then finding whether there was an encroachment, it is necessary that both the lands should be measured, exact dividing boundary line should be located and it can be found out whether the party, against whom encroachment is alleged, has excess land in possession. If the finding could be otherwise, the story of encroachment would not be proved may be that the plaintiff has lost her land and the said loss could be due to encroachment by any person owning land surrounding the plaintiff’s land.” Thus, in order to ascertain the encroachment over immovable property if suit land is measured by a Cadastral Surveyor concerned on the basis of the permanent boundary marks or admitted boundary marks, then there would be no requirement of further evidence in the case. 5. Thus, a Cadastral Surveyor fixing the boundary marks need to ascertain the actual physical possession of the suit land and to find out whether the suit land is encroached upon which may be indicated in the measurement map/plan drawn on the scale. 6. Thus, fact finding regarding removal of encroachment based on measurement done by the Cadastral Surveyor becomes easy more so when the actual measurement and the fixation of boundary marks are carried out in the presence of land owners concerned or those who are in possession of adjoining lands. In the absence of any map/plan drawn by the Competent Surveyor, the trial Court in such cases may appoint a Court Commissioner in order to ascertain boundaries of the suit field and then to decide whether on the basis of the evidence led before it any encroachment was made. If so, decree may be passed for removal of encroachment, if any, found on the basis of measurement plan/map drawn by the competent survey Official to the appropriate scale. 7. The reference is also made, by Shri Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to the ruling in the case of Sou. Ashatai w/o Vijayrao Warekar & ors. vs. Champatrao Laxmanrao Kale & anr reported at 2011(5) ALL MR 658. Ratio of the decision is that the trial Court can appoint the Court Commissioner in such a case wherein adjudication is required regarding boundary marks, boundaries of the suit field to ascertain whether the encroachment as claimed was made and to pass consequential order for removal of encroachment. vs. Champatrao Laxmanrao Kale & anr reported at 2011(5) ALL MR 658. Ratio of the decision is that the trial Court can appoint the Court Commissioner in such a case wherein adjudication is required regarding boundary marks, boundaries of the suit field to ascertain whether the encroachment as claimed was made and to pass consequential order for removal of encroachment. Therefore, it is desirable in such cases of disputed boundary marks to carry out the measurements and to determine the boundaries of the suit field area, if any, encroached upon so that on the basis of the measurement map and other relevant evidence on record, the fact of encroachment is found, and then necessary consequential order is passed for removal of encroachment, from the suit land duly measured. 8. Another ruling is relied upon, by Shri Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in the case of Niranjanabai Chandrakant Vira vs. Pramilabai Balkrishna Zade and another reported at [2004] 6 Bom.CR 829 to argue that in such cases when joint measurements were not carried out in the presence of all the parties concerned, the case may be remanded so that accurate map/plan is brought on record of the case, on the basis of which the Court may draw presumption in view of Section 83 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, if map/plan drawn by a competent Official such as the Taluka Inspector of Land Records or the District Inspector of Land Records or the Competent Surveyor deputed by the Central or the State Government’s office concerned and when such map/plan is drawn in respect of the disputed property for fixation of boundary marks or for denoting the encroachment, if any, the Court can draw presumption about the accuracy of such map in evidence so that the decree can be effectively executed in such cases. Of course, the Competent Surveyor is required to take appropriate legal steps to carry out the measurement of the disputed property. In the ruling of Niranjanabai Chandrakant Vira’s case cited (supra), the second appeal was allowed and the proceeding was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision according to law. 9. As against above rulings, Shri D.S. Amle, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, also invited my attention to the recent ruling in the case of Manikrao Ramji Chawake vs. Ashok Ambadas Gawande and another reported at 2014(2) Mh. 9. As against above rulings, Shri D.S. Amle, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, also invited my attention to the recent ruling in the case of Manikrao Ramji Chawake vs. Ashok Ambadas Gawande and another reported at 2014(2) Mh. L.J. 840 this Court had considered the substantial question of law as to whether it is essential to get the map in respect of the disputed agricultural land prepared by the Court Commissioner and the substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative because in cases of dispute as to boundary or boundary marks of the immovable property when the parties do not agree to any map produced on the record, it is essential for the trial Court or the first appellate Court as final Court on finding of facts to insist that a competent Cadastral Surveyor is appointed as the Court Commissioner to prepare measurement map in respect of the suit property so that after receiving authentic map/plan drawn by the competent Official on behalf of the Central or the State Government as the case may so that the trial Court is assisted meaningfully with a view to effectively and properly execute the decree for removal of encroachment. Effective execution of the decree is facilitated on account of map/plan-drawn by the Competent and expert Official so as to set at naught the real controversy between the parties. 10. This Court made reference to the earlier judicial precedents in the cases of Ramchandra Bhikaji Jagtap vs. Dudharam Langruji Padvekar (dead) through L.Rs Bulkabai Padvekar and ors. reported at 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 278 and Ushabaiw/o Sharadchandra Bannore vs. Wasudeo s/o Baliramji Mehare and ors., reported at 2004(2) Mh. L.J. 594 and after setting aside the impugned judgment and order in respect of Manikrao Ramji Chawake cited (supra) the proceeding was remanded to the trial Court to take further evidence and then to decide the controversy afresh and finally on merits according to law. 11. In another ruling by this Court in the case of Sulemankhan s/o Mumtajkhan and others vs. Smt. Bhagirathibai wd/o Digambar Asalmol, Second Appeal No.45 of 2013, decided on 2.4.2014, the identical substantial question of law was considered regarding necessity of measurement of the suit land and adjoining lands, if so necessary to determine encroachment, if any, and to pass a decree on the basis of legal evidence in this regard. 12. 12. In the case of Sulemankhan s/o Mumtajkhan and others vs. Smt. Bhagirathibai wd/o Digambar Asalmol, cited (supra) also this Court considered that it is desirable that the learned Trial Judge shall endeavour to get an agreed map on record and in the absence of such agreed map/plan, can depend upon evidence obtained through the Court Commissioner who may be competent Official from the Taluka Inspector of Land Records or the District Inspector of Land Records who can secure copies of the necessary public records relating to Gat/Survey Number concerned to settle the boundaries of the suit properties by carrying out the measurement after due notice to the parties to the suit as also adjacent owners/possessors of the suit properties so as to report to the trial Court with a detailed map to meaningfully assist the trial Court to decide the suit and pass an effective executable decree in such case. 13. In the present case, it appears that the plaintiff had claimed possession of encroached portion of agricultural land bearing Survey No.47/7-A admeasuring about 2.64R situated at village Telhara (Bk.), Taluka Telhara, District Akola. According Shri Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the map was drawn by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records concerned but notice was not issued to the appellant/defendant while according to Shri Amle, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, son of defendant No.1 by name Chandrakant was present and had refused to sign the measurement record in respect of the plan drawn by the Taluka Inspector of Lands Records concerned. 14. Be that as it may, when the suit is filed for removal of encroachment from and for the possession immovable property, the plaintiff is required to take care to comply with Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to describe the suit property which is subject-matter of the suit sufficiently so as to identify appropriately with boundaries thereof. The plaintiff must be careful to describe the property by its boundaries, Survey Number/Gat Number with area mentioning the boundaries on North, East, West and South of the suit property. Without such description, the trial Court may not be assisted properly by the plaintiff to pass an effective decree if it is passed for the removal of encroachment from the suit land/property in such cases. 15. Without such description, the trial Court may not be assisted properly by the plaintiff to pass an effective decree if it is passed for the removal of encroachment from the suit land/property in such cases. 15. In the present case, a plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2005 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara, mentioned only Survey Number and area but did not describe the suit land sufficiently by its boundaries on North, East and West. The plaintiff may after such description mention as to how much area is encroached upon approximately by the defendants in respect of which possession is sought and with or without consequential relief of damages and/or mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the Courts below overlooked the legal requirement in the plaint under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court could have insisted upon sufficient and full description in respect of the suit property in such case. 16. For the reasons stated, and in view of the rulings cited (supra), the substantial question of law is already settled as it is necessary in such cases for the trial Court to insist upon sufficient description of the immovable property by its boundaries and further to insist upon the measurement plan/map drawn by the competent Official from the office of the Government concerned, I must allow this second appeal by setting aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the first appellate Court and the trial Court with further direction to the trial Court to allow opportunity of amending the plaint to the plaintiff so as to comply with Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to allow the parties to lead further evidence as it may deem fit in respect of the boundary dispute to ascertain the fact of encroachment, if any, after proper measurement and fixation of boundaries in the suit land; on the basis of further evidence as the trial Court may require and allow to ascertain the encroachment to decide the suit and to pass the decree in accordance with law on merits. 17. In the result, Second Appeal No.123 of 2013 is hereby allowed in terms of above order. 17. In the result, Second Appeal No.123 of 2013 is hereby allowed in terms of above order. The impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2012, passed by the learned District Judge-I, Akot, in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2009, and judgment and order dated 18.6.2007, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara, in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2005, are set aside. The parties shall approach before the trial Court on 28.4.2014. The trial Court shall allow the parties to adduce further evidence as it may deem fit and then shall decide the suit on its own merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Second Appeal allowed.