1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.63/2010 Sau. Vimal Shyamrao Jawale Since deceased by her legal representatives Chandrashekhar Shyamrao Jawale and others ...Versus... Smt. Malatibai Jamanalal Joshi Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Adv. for appellants] [Shri Manoj Sable, Adv. for respondent] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 28.03.2011. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit particularly when the land on which encroachment is said to have been made does not belong to the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and prosecute the suit and then the Court did not have jurisdiction to pass a decree. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the appellate Court. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that the alleged encroached portion is neither on the property of the plaintiff nor on the respondent, but the same is on the Municipal road. 2 It appears that there is a complete failure on the part of the Municipal Council in protecting the public road. Therefore, without going into inter se dispute between the appellants and the respondent, I find that the decree passed by the appellate Court can well be supported and justified since there is an encroachment found on the public road and no Court would support the action of continuing with the encroachment on the public road as it causes hindrance to the public at large. Failure on the part of the Municipal Council to take steps to protect the public road cannot be a ground to allow the appellants to continue with the encroachment found on the public road. Therefore, without going into the question whether the suit could have been decreed or not in view of the admitted position that the encroachment is on the public road, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the first appellate Court, directing removal of encroachment. In that view of the matter, second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw