1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. SECOND APPEAL NO.452 OF 2002 (NAMDEO VS.UDAYSING) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7127 OF 2002. 1. Heard Shri Kakde, learned Advocate h/f Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. 2. Original defendant No.1 is raising an exception to the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below. 3. Respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) had instituted RCS No.91 of 1998 claiming possession of the disputed site. The disputed area is a part of residential premises belonging to plaintiff. According to plaintiff, defendant No.1 has illegally asserted his possession towards some part of the property. Defendant No.1 had presented RCS No.158 of 1989, claiming decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit site against the plaintiff. Said suit was dismissed. Appeal preferred before the lower appellate Court was also dismissed. Second Appeal No.192 of 1998 presented by defendant No.1 was also dismissed summarily by this Court on 17.1.2001. 4. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established his entitlement to the disputed property and as such granted decree in his favour. Appeal presented by defendant No.1 also came to be 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that the suit presented by plaintiff was not within the prescribed period of limitation and that the plaintiff has not given a specific date of dispossession from the property. 6. I have perused the written statement of defendant No.1. Such an defence was not raised in the written statement. In absence of specific pleading, the ground raised for the first time in the second appeal, cannot be gone into. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellant is essentially the matter of appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. 7. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. In view of the dismissal of second appeal itself, application for stay does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. Dt.23.7.2009 (R.M.BORDE, J.) akl