( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2009 SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2009 SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2009 Yoginath Dwarkanath Bhakta ..Appellant (Nighojkar) V/s. Bholanath Adinath Bhakta ..Respondent (Nighojkar) ...... Mr.U.B.Nighot for the appellant ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 16th April, 2009 DATED : 16th April, 2009 DATED : 16th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The respondent herein instituted Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2004 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, District Pune against the appellant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the appellant was permitted to occupy the suit premises on a license and that the respondent wanted the premises for his ( 2 ) occupation. That suit came to be decreed by judgment dated 24th September, 2004 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, Dist. Pune. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant herein filed Civil Appeal No.597 of 2004 in the District Court at Pune and the learned District Judge, 14 and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune vide judgment and decree dated 1st October, 2008 dismissed the appeal. It is in these circumstances, the appellant has filed the second appeal. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr.U.B.Nighot on behalf of appellant. According to the learned advocate Mr.Nighot, the finding arrived at by both the Courts are improper and are required to be reconsidered in the Second Appeal as according to him the substantial question of law is whether the suit was properly valued. 3. In so far as this aspect is concerned, the plaintiff claimed that the valuation of the premises namely is Rs.14,000/- whereas the appellant claimed that the valuation of the suit premises is in lakhs. However, no evidence was placed before the Court. If this is be so, the appellant cannot raise the stand about the question of valuation because the appellant could not placed before the Court material to show ( 3 ) that the learned trial Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. Even on merits, the appellant had taken stand that he was a tenant in respect of suit premises which he could not prove. Having gone through the entire order, I am inclined to observe that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter and that both the Courts have taken a proper view in the matter and the second appeal is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . The second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. . There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)