IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2008 SHRI. BHARAT KESHAV GAONKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. BABALI DATTARAM GARUDI THROUGH ATTORNEY VISHWAS VISHNU MORJE ... Respondent Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. Phadte, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 8th April, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. By this second appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 16.7.2007 passed by the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.149/2004 dismissing the appeal, preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 205/96/F. The respondent filed the above suit against the appellant, seeking reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to demolish the construction done in the suit house which is a joint mundkarial house and further sought restoration of the same to its original condition. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had carried out illegal construction without his consent within the mundkarial area of 295 sq. metres which was demarcated by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez, at Mapusa. 2. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings given by both the Courts below are perverse inasmuch as the construction undertaken by the appellant/defendant is beyond the mundkarial area and, therefore, the impugned decrees of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. According to the learned Counsel, the defendant at no point of time carried out any construction within the mundkarial area of 295 sq. metres and, therefore, the impugned decrees are liable to be set aside. Mr. Lawande submitted that the defendant would have no objection for demolition of construction, if found to have been carried out within the mundkarial area of 295 sq. metres. 3. Per contra, Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts and, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. since no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. However, in view of the stand taken by the appellant that the construction undertaken by the defendant is beyond the mundkarial area of 295 sq. metres, and further the defendant has no objection to demolish the construction, if carried out within the mundkarial area, it is made clear that in case the execution of the decree is sought by the plaintiff, and in the event the same is objected to by the defendant, the executing Court shall ascertain that the construction undertaken has been undertaken within the mundkarial area or beyond it. For this purpose, the executing Court may pass appropriate orders before passing the final order. 5. The appeal is dismissed, subject to the observations made herein above. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ssm.