:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2004 SECOND APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2004 SECOND APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders -------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Walimbe with Mr. R.V. More for the appellant. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 24.11.2005 . Heard. Both the Courts come to the conclusion in a suit filed by the plaintiff simplicitor for perpetual injunction against the defendants, that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants obstructed his possession on 25/11/1994. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff. As the appellate Court has upheld that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession :2: over the suit property, there is no question of granting any injunction as sought. After going through the pleadings, as well as, reasoning given by the appellate Court, I am also of the view that there is no substantial question of law involved to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the Courts below. Second Appeal therefore, is dismissed. (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]