1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 320 of 2008 (Govindrao Sakharamji Ingle & anr. Vs. The M.C. Mangrulpir & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 8 th August, 2008 Heard Shri Ghare for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant no.2 was trying to lay a drain in the suit property towards the boundary of their house upto main gate. According to the plaintiffs, in that event, the defendant no.1 was liable to be directed to construct an underground line by putting a slab over the surface of drain, so that it would not be hazardous and dangerous to people. The relief of perpetual injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from illegally constructing the drain in southern part of the suit property. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that, in fact, the plaintiffs had obstructed the flowing of the drain by putting 2 waste from saw mill and as such, the defendant no.2 along with the others had made a complaint to the Municipal Council, Mangrulpir. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants were illegally trying to make the construction of the drain on the southern part of the suit property. Having recorded the concurrent findings to the aforesaid effect, both the Courts further held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for grant of injunction as prayed by them. While recording the aforesaid findings, the Court considered the oral and documentary evidence on record including the report of the Commissioner, to answer the issues against the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP