JUDGMENT : M G Giratkar, J. This an appeal against the judgment of First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1992. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in short is as under (The parties shall be referred by their status in the trial Court): 2. The plaintiff (respondent) has filed R.C.S. No. 265 of 1989 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara alleging that defendant (appellants in the present appeal) has encroached on his land bearing Gat No. 257. It is the contention of the plaintiff (respondent) that he measured the land on 20.05.1988. The land of Gat No. 257 was measured by the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), Akola. The defendant (appellants) appeared before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara and filed his written statement. He has contended in his written statement that his land Gat No. 256 was not measured by the Surveyor and, therefore, measurement is wrong. Issues were framed. Both parties adduced their respective evidences. The trial Court recorded its findings holding the encroachment is proved by the plaintiff (respondent) made by the defendant (appellants). The trial Court has recorded its findings that the defendant has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and, therefore, suit was filed. 3. The plaintiff (respondent) filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1992 before the Joint District Judge, Akola. The First Appellate Court has recorded its findings that as per the measurement map (Exh. 50), the encroachment by the defendant (appellants) is proved by the plaintiff (respondent) and, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the defendant (appellants) to handover the possession of encroached portion shown in the map [Exh. 50 (49)]. Being aggrieved by the judgment of First Appellate Court, Akola, the defendant (appellants) has filed the present appeal. 4. Specific order is already passed by this Court in Civil Application (C.A.S.) No. 35 of 2019 on 19.03.2019 that this application will be decided at the time of final hearing. 5. In view of the Civil Application (C.A.S.) No. 35 of 2019 and substantial question of law framed vide order of admission dated 31.08.1995, this appeal is heard on the following substantial questions of law: (i) What is the true scope of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. and whether a party can assail an adverse finding without filing a cross-objection. 5. In view of the Civil Application (C.A.S.) No. 35 of 2019 and substantial question of law framed vide order of admission dated 31.08.1995, this appeal is heard on the following substantial questions of law: (i) What is the true scope of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. and whether a party can assail an adverse finding without filing a cross-objection. Further could the appellate court ignore the map filed by defendant under Order 41 Rule 27. ...... NO (ii) Whether, the learned appellant Court committed a serious mistake of law, in not considering the cross objections which were filed much prior to the appeal being heard finally ? ... YES (iii) Whether the appellate court erred in not considering the report of measurement/ map, though production of thereof was allowed, map/ measurement report, though was filed on record by appellant, the learned appellate court whether erred, in not going through this report or not allowing appellant an opportunity to prove that document, once its production was allowed, whether this action, on the part of learned appellate court is an error serious, on record ? ..... YES 6. None appears for the respondent. 7. Heard learned Counsel Shri C.A. Joshi for the appellants (defendant). He has pointed out written statement filed before the trial Court and submitted that in the written statement itself, the specific pleading was made by the defendant (appellants) in para 5A. It is specifically stated by the defendant (appellants) that his field Gat No. 256 was not measured by the Surveyor. He is in possession of land area admeasuring 0.81 R and there is no encroachment on the land Gat No. 257. 8. Learned Counsel has pointed out Exh. 59 i.e. 7/12 Extract, in which defendant (appellants) is shown owner of land Gat No. 256 area admeasuring 0.81 R. Learned Counsel has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the defendant (appellants) has measured his field and field of the plaintiff (respondent). The copy of map alongwith application Exh. 10 was filed before the District Judge, Akola. The learned District Judge allowed the production of document. 9. Learned Counsel has submitted that while reversing the judgment of trial Court, the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the map filed by the defendant (appellants). There was also cross-objection filed by the defendant (appellants), but it was not taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court. The learned District Judge allowed the production of document. 9. Learned Counsel has submitted that while reversing the judgment of trial Court, the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the map filed by the defendant (appellants). There was also cross-objection filed by the defendant (appellants), but it was not taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court. At last, prayed that plaintiff (respondent) failed to prove the encroachment as shown in Exh. 50 (measurement map) before the trial Court, therefore, prayed to dismissed the suit by allowing the present appeal. 10. Learned Counsel Shri Joshi has pointed out the map filed by the plaintiff (respondent) before the trial Court and map filed by the defendant (appellants) before the First Appellate Court. Both maps are prepared by Government Surveyor. In the map filed by the plaintiff (respondent), encroachment of 0.22 R is shown. Whereas the map filed by the defendant (appellants) no encroachment is shown. Therefore, to elucidate the matter, the local commissioner was to be appointed as per Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. In support of his submission, he has pointed out the decisions in the cases of Yeshwant Bhaduji Ghuse Vs. Vithobaji Laxman Ladekar, (2010) 3 MhLJ 956 , Vachhalabai w/o Kundlik Gavane and others Vs. Chinkaji s/o Malhari Jadhav and others, (2012) 4 MhLJ 198 and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and ors., (2008) 8 SCC 671 11. Perused the plaint and written statement filed before the trial Court. In the plaint, the plaintiff (respondent) has contended that he is owner of land Gat No. 257 by virtue of Will Deed executed by Ramaji. The suit was filed by Ramaji. After his death Deolal was appeared as the plaintiff (respondent). It was the contention of the plaintiff (respondent) that the defendant (appellants) is owner of adjacent field Gat No. 256. He has made encroachment on the land Gat No. 257, therefore, he measured his field through the office of District Inspector of Land Record, Akola (DILR). The Measurer Shri Dattatraya Jadhav came to field and measured the field Gat No. 257 in presence of defendant (appellant) and other witnesses. During measurement, it was found that defendant (appellants) has encroached on land Gat No. 257 area admeasuring 0.22 R. The defendant (appellants) appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement. The Measurer Shri Dattatraya Jadhav came to field and measured the field Gat No. 257 in presence of defendant (appellant) and other witnesses. During measurement, it was found that defendant (appellants) has encroached on land Gat No. 257 area admeasuring 0.22 R. The defendant (appellants) appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement. He has specifically pleaded in written statement that the field of defendant (appellants) Gat No. 256 was not measured by Surveyor Shri Jadhav on 28.05.1988. Therefore, measurement map Exh. 50 does not show the factual situation. 12. The learned trial Court recorded its findings relying on the evidence of plaintiff (respondent) and his witness Shri Jadhav (Surveyor) that defendant (appellants) has encroached on 0.22 R land of Gat No. 257, but recorded the findings that the defendant (appellants) has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession, therefore, suit was dismissed. 13. In the first appeal, the defendant (appellants) filed application (Exh. 10) alongwith measurement map and requested the First Appellate Court to compare the maps filed by the plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellants). The First Appellate Court passed the following order on Exh. 10 which is reproduced as under: "The appellant is seeking permission for production of document, proposed to be produced a measurement map from D.I.L.R. Office. The counsel for respondent Shri U.P. Mule was in agreement that if respondent was present at the time of measurement, the production would not be objected, but he was unable to make submission whether the respondent was present at the time of measurement. The endorsements on the measurement map are found that respondent was present. Considering it, the production of document is allowed for proper adjudication of the dispute in appeal". 14. The learned II Additional District Judge, Akola allowed the said application (Exh. 10). Production of map was allowed for proper adjudication of the dispute in appeal. From the perusal of the impugned judgment in First Appeal, it appears that First Appellate Court not considered the defense raised by the defendant (appellants). Now, it is settled law that when there are two maps filed on record then, it is for the Court to appoint commissioner for joint measurement of disputed lands and after joint measurement, objection if any, be heard and joint measurement map can be taken into consideration while deciding the matter. 15. Now, it is settled law that when there are two maps filed on record then, it is for the Court to appoint commissioner for joint measurement of disputed lands and after joint measurement, objection if any, be heard and joint measurement map can be taken into consideration while deciding the matter. 15. In the present appeal, the map filed by the plaintiff (respondent) is dated 28.05.1988. From the perusal of the map, it is clear that land Gat No. 256 of defendant (appellants) was not measured. Only land of Gat No. 257 of plaintiff (respondent) was measured and portion is shown as encroached area about 0.22 R. The defendant (appellants) specifically contended in the written statement that his field was not measured. He is owner of Gat No. 256 area 0.81 R. Specific contention of the defendant (appellants) was not taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court. 16. The defendant (appellants) measured his land Gat No. 256 and Gat No. 257 of the plaintiff (respondent) on 31.01.1993. At the time of measurement, the plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellant) both were present. Surveyor Shri Dhengade who measured the lands of Gat Nos. 256 and 257 not shown any encroachment of defendant (appellant) on Gat No. 257. The First Appellate Court passed the order below Exh. 10 and allowed the production of map filed by the defendant (appellants), but map filed by the defendant (appellants) not taken into consideration. As per the judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that when there are two maps showing contradictory position, then it is for the Court to appoint the commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of C.P.C. In the case of Yashwant (cited supra) this Court has held that: "Court has discretion to order local investigation. Cases of boundary disputes and disputes about identity of lands are instances when a Court should order local investigation under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code". 17. In the case of Vachhalabai (cited supra) this Court has held that: "Dispute as to encroachment on land. There were two reports from T.I.L.R. office, on record, one prepared after measurement of the land of the plaintiffs on the application filed by the plaintiffs for measurement of their land and another prepared after measurement of the land of the defendants on the application filed by the defendants. There were two reports from T.I.L.R. office, on record, one prepared after measurement of the land of the plaintiffs on the application filed by the plaintiffs for measurement of their land and another prepared after measurement of the land of the defendants on the application filed by the defendants. Direction issued to lower Appellate Court to appoint the Court Commissioner either T.I.L.R. or D.I.L.R. for joint measurement of the land of the appellants and the respondents, and then pass appropriate orders on merits after hearing the parties". 18. In the case of Haryana Waqf Board (cited supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "Commission for making local investigation. When ought to be made. Demarcation of suit land. Appellant Wakf Board's second appeal dismissed summarily by High Court in view of concurrent findings of lower court that the appellant had failed to prove encroachment of its land. Appellant had however filed applications both before trial court as well as appellate court for appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land. On facts found that there was no specific denial by respondents of appellant's averments that appellant's land had been encroached. The controversy between the parties was regarding demarcation of land because the parties had adjacent lands. Held, second appeal should not have been dismissed summarily and Local Commissioner ought to have been appointed for demarcation of land". 19. From the perusal of record and evidence, it is clear that the Surveyor Shri Jadhav not measured the land of defendant (appellants) while preparing map (Exh. 50). The Surveyor Shri Jadhav only measured the land of plaintiff (respondent) Gat No. 257 and not measured the land Gat No. 256. The 7/12 Extract of Gat No. 256 shows that defendant (appellants) is owner of land bearing Gat No. 256 area admeasuring 0.81 R. The defendant (appellants) has specifically stated in his written statement that there should be joint measurement because the field Gat No. 256 was not measured by the Surveyor. From the perusal of the cross-examination of Shri Jadhav (Surveyor), it appears that there was boundary and electric pole. It is shown in the map (Exh. 50). The electric pole on the boundary, which is shown as encroached area by the defendant (appellants). From the perusal of the cross-examination of Shri Jadhav (Surveyor), it appears that there was boundary and electric pole. It is shown in the map (Exh. 50). The electric pole on the boundary, which is shown as encroached area by the defendant (appellants). The map filed by the defendant (appellants) before First Appellate Court clearly shows that he has not encroached on land Gat No. 257, therefore, it is not clear that as to whether the defendant (appellants) has made any encroachment on the land of plaintiff (respondent). 20. In view of the above cited judgments, the appeal is partly allowed. 21. Impugned judgment of Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara in Regular Civil Suit No. 256 of 1989 and judgment of First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1992 are hereby quashed and set aside. 22. Regular Civil Suit No. 256 of 1989 is remanded back to the Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara. 23. Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara is directed to appoint Court Commissioner as per the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 of C.P.C. 24. As far as possible Taluka Inspector of Land Record be appointed as the Court Commissioner. 25. The plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellants) are directed to bear the expenditure of measurement of lands by the Court Commissioner. 26. The Court Commissioner be specifically directed to measure the lands of plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellants) bearing Gat Nos. 256 and 257 jointly and show factual situation. 27. Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara is directed to decide civil suit expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record from this Court. 28. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 29. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. 30. Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of in terms of the above order.