1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.632 OF 2010 Shri Shankar Dadu Mane .. Appellant. Vs. Smt.Sushila Babu Kambale and ors .. Respondents. Mr.Vijay Killedar, for the appellant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24/11/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit filed by the appellant for injunction simplicitor. The suit was subsequently amended and possession of the suit property was also sought. The Courts below, after considering the entire evidence on record, have held that the respondents have acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. In other words, the suit is held to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, the encroachment was revealed on 16.3.1993 and the suit was filed on 16.2.2006. In view thereof, both the courts below have rightly held that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Mr Killedar, learned counsel for the appellant T 2 vehemently submitted that there was earlier round of litigation wherein a direction was issued to the respondents-defendants to hand over possession of the property in dispute in the present suit to the appellant and those proceedings were concluded in 2005. However, he fairly submitted that the suit property in the earlier proceedings (Regular Civil Suit No.345 of 1992) was different. In other words, the subject matter of the present suit was not in dispute in the earlier proceedings. That being so, the submission of Mr Killedar, learned counsel for the appellant, is of no avail to the appellant. In my opinion, no substantial question of law is either involved or raised, warranting interference by this Court in the Second Appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)