1 S.A.No.1699.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1699 OF 2004 Sudam S/o Haribhau Nipanikar ... Appellant V E R S U S Trivenibai W/o Devidasrao Shastri Dead through L.Rs. and other ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12458 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1699 OF 2004 Sudam S/o Haribhau Nipanikar ... Applicant V E R S U S Trivenibai W/o Devidasrao Shastri Dead through L.Rs. and other ... Respondents ... Mr.S.K.Kulkarni,Advocate holding for Mr.D.J.Choudhary,Advocate for Appellant-Applicant Mr.V.C.Misal,Advocate holding for Mr.R.S.Deshmukh,Advocate for respondent No.3 Respondent no.2-1/B(a) dismissed as per Court's order dated 6.3.2009. ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] This second appeal is challenging the two concurrent findings recorded by the lower Courts. 2 S.A.No.1699.04 2] The respondents filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of a plot of land at Parli- Vaijanth. The appellant/defendant took various defences to oppose the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit and so the appellant filed an appeal before the District Court. The learned District Judge observed that some of the issues were not framed and no findings were recorded on such issues. So, he framed certain issues and directed the trial Court to record the evidence on such issues and returned his findings to the appellate Court. The trial Court, thereafter, allowed the parties to record their evidence on the issues and he has recorded his findings on such issues. This time also the trial Court held against the appellant. . The learned Judge instead of simply sending his findings recorded by him to the appellate Court, erroneously stated that he would decree the suit once again. He passed such Judgment, decreeing the suit. As against this Judgment the appellant once again filed an appeal. This, indeed, was not necessary, because the appellant's previous appeal was still pending. However, the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court took note of this anomaly and ignoring the second Judgment of the trial Court took into account only the findings recorded on new issues sent for trial. 3 S.A.No.1699.04 3] After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, appearing for the appellant raised only one point saying that the appellant suffered serious prejudice because the trial Court decreed the suit for second time. Thus, according to him this gives rise a substantial question of law. I am afraid that this issue was already resolved through the later judgment of first Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no substance in submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. 4] The rest of the findings recorded by the Courts are mostly on facts, therefore no interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No. 12458 of 2004 for stay stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ ok