IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5190 OF 1998. Atmara Ramchandra Mitkar..... .... ..... Appellants V/s Anton Kistu Rodrigues @ Vardekar & Ors.... .... ..... Respondents. Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.A.H.Palekar, Adv. For respondents 1A & 2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 29th JANUARY, 2009. PC: The respondent instituted a suit for perpetual mandatory injunction with a view to have an obstruction caused by defendant No.1-appellant removed which blocked the foot-way available to the plaintiff for approaching the road through the field owned by defendant No.2. The plaintiff claims a right of foot-way from his house which is situated in the field for approaching the road through S.No.678, Hissa Nos.11, 12 and 13. The said hissas are admittedly owned by defendant No.2 who has not challenged the order. The present appellant claims to have a pending litigation with defendant No.2 in regard to said hissas. It is undisputed that the appellant claim to be a tenant of hissa Nos.11, 12 and 13 which is owned by defendant No.2. The appellant has lost the said litigation till the stage 1 of MRT and it is stated that writ petition is pending in the High Court. Be it as it may, on appreciation of evidence on record both Courts below have concurrently held the existence of foot-way through hissa Nos.11, 12 and 13 for approaching the road and thus relief has been granted to the plaintiff by directing the appellant to remove obstruction to the foot-way. A finding of fact about existence of way being used by the plaintiff is recorded on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence there being no merit second appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of second appeal Civil Application No.5190/98 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. 29.01.2009. 2