IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second Appeal No.l50l of 2005 with Civil Application no. 2l0l of 2005 Riyaz Ahmed Niyas Ahd Momin ... appellant vs Khairunnissa Noor Mohammad... respondent Ms Anita G Bhaktwarni for appellant Mr. R.S.Datar for respondent CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED 22.2.2006 DATED 22.2.2006 DATED 22.2.2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Two contentions have been raised before this court in this appeal. First is that the report of the court commissioner has not been considered by the courts below in proper perspective. It is not possible to accept this submission. The courts below have adverted to the relevant evidence on record in the context of objections taken by the appellant- obstructionist, who incidentally is the son of the judgement debtor no. 2. So far as the judgement debtor no. 2 is concerned he has no objection to the execution decree as is recorded by the courts below. In my opinion the analysis done by the appeal court of the relevant materials on record as can be discerned from paras 9 and l0 of the impugned judgment, is unexceptional. On the appreciation of the evidence the finding of fact recorded by the courts below it is found that the property being house no.l referred to by the appellant is situated at Ambedkarnagar where as the suit property shown as gala no.6 situated at Jaitunpura, which is the description of the suit property given in the plaint. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the observations made in para l2 of the impugned judgment would contend that the manner in which the appeal court has analysed the court commissioner’s report is unacceptable. The observations made in para l2 by the appeal court, to my mind, indicates that the measurement taken by the court commissioner are consistent with the measurement taken by the court is in relation to the suit property, against which decree will be executed. Suffice it to observe that for the analysis done by the appeal court, particularly in paras 9 and l0 of the impugned judgment,which is a possible view, no interference is warranted. The attempt of the appellant is in effect of inviting this court to reappreciate the evidence on record, which is not the scope of jurisdiction of this court while entertaining second appeals. In any case no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. . The learned counsel for the appellant would then contend that the measurement of the suit property given in the plaint is shown as admeasuring l5 ft x l8 ft where as the measurement done by the court commissioner of the suit property identified in the decree are l6 x 7 ft and 9 x 8 ft for which reason also the decree cannot be proceeded with. It is not possible to accept this submission. The objection of the obstructionist essentially was that the decree was sought to be executed in respect of the property other than the suit property which was in his possession. In so far as the suit property is concerned the judgment debtor no. 2 has no objection for execution of the decree. The judgment debtor no. 2 is the father of the appellant- obstructionist. The appellant cannot be heard to ay that the decree cannot be executed in respect of the premises which have been identified correctly by the plaintiff as suit property and accepted by the courts below being situated at Jaintunpura. Viewed in this perspective there is no substance in this second appeal. Hence appeal as well as the civil application are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3000, to be paid to the decree holder for frivolous litigation pursued by the appellant right upto this court. If the cost is not paid by the appellant, it will be open to the decree holder to pursue his claim before the executing court in that behalf.