( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2003 Manikrao s/o. Raoji Gavane .. Appellant Versus Govind s/o. Namdeo Gavane & ors. .. Respondents Shri V.D. Patnoorkar h/f. Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.B. Rakhunde h/f. Shri S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 15.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri V.D. Patnoorkar h/f. Adv. Shri A.S. Golegaonkar for the appellant and Adv. Shri P.B. Rakhunde h/f. Adv.Shri S.B. Bhapkar for respondent No.4. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff who approached the Court with a case that the defendants who are owners of adjoining land have made encroachment into his land to the extent of 13 R. The Trial Court so also the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, ( 2 ) disbelieving the case of he appellant/plaintiff that there was encroachment of 13 R by the respondents. However, the respondents have made counter-claim for declaration and injunction in respect of their land block No. 19 admeasuring 1 H 94 R. It is specifically stated before me that the appellant/plaintiff does not claim any right to said portion in block No.19 and does not dispute its area. His claim is regarding his property which is block No. 10. 2. The suit was filed on the basis of measurements which were carried out on 20.01.1992 and in said measurements it is shown that the respondents had encroached into the property of the appellant/plaintiff to the extent of 13 R. At the time of evidence, the concerned Cadestral Surveyor who had measured the land was not examined. The plaintiff/appellant examined plaintiff and a clerk from the office of D.I.L.R. Evidence of the clerk of the office of D.I.L.R. could not prove whether measurements carried out on 20.01.1992 were properly carried out. In this view of the matter, the suit was rightly dismissed. So far as counter-claim ( 3 ) is concerned, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given sufficient reasons to hold that portion admeasuring 1 H 94 R out of Block No. 19 belongs to the respondents. In para 9 it is specifically stated that the plaintiff did not cross-examine the defendants on this point nor he spoke anything about block No. 19, in his examination-in-chief. The Appellate Court in para 9 has stated that the appellant did not even file written statement so far as counter claim is concerned. 3. So, in the circumstances, this appeal cannot be admitted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission in absence of any substantial question of law. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa7.03