(1) SA. 43.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2010 Venkat Narayan Sitapure .. Appellant VERSUS Kalyan Shankarrao Kulkarni .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 650 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2010 Venkat Narayan Sitapure .. Applicant VERSUS Kalyan Shankarrao Kulkarni .. Respondent Mr. P.R. Tandale, Advocate for the appellant/applicant ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. This appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The respondent- plaintiff filed suit for removal of encroachment allegedly made by the appellant-defendant. The Courts below recorded a finding on the basis of evidence of cadestral surveyor that the appellant had made encroachment on the respondent-plaintiff's plot. The suit, thus was decreed and the first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. (2) SA. 43.2010 2] Having gone through the judgment, I find no reason to disturb the findings. The argument that the cadestral surveyor would not have given his opinion about the factum of encroachment, is not acceptable because what the said witness had done was to take measurement and prepare a plan. The Court below recorded his deposition and having regard to the location map which he prepared, came to the conclusion that there existed encroachment. The second submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, is that the Court could not have appointed the cadestral surveyor as Court Commissioner for collecting evidence for the respondent. I am afraid this argument is not available to the appellant because while the matter was before the trial Court, he did not oppose such an order. He was party to such arrangement and he even attended when the Court Commissioner went for taking measurements. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application no. 650 of 2010 seeking stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp