1 (SA 419 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1093 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2010 Satyanarayan Rajmallu Samal and Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Dr. Laxmikanta @Vijayalaxmi Subhash Poredi ...Respondent ----- Mr.N.P. Shimpi for Appellants Mr. Surel Shal for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1st April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Respondent. 2. The Appellants are the Original Defendants. Suit was filed by the Respondent-Original Plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction. The Respondent -Plaintiff is the tenant in respect of the suit premises. The suit property was let out to the Plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs.400/- since 1.8.1988. The Plaintiff was using the said premises as clinic. According to the Plaintiff, the 2 (SA 419 of 2010) Defendants had erected a wall in the suit premises when the Plaintiff was not in a town. The Defendants filed their written statement and denying the said contention. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff had erected the wall without permission of the Defendants. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and directed the Defendants to demolish the said wall. This order was challenged by the Defendants by filing an appeal in the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants-Original Defendants submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the Appellants- Defendants herein had constructed the said wall. He submitted that both the Courts below had erred in recording the said finding. He invited my attention to the deposition of the Plaintiff and the Defendants in support of the said case. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellants cannot be accepted. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and also the Lower Appellate Court. Both the Courts have recorded the said finding after taking into consideration the evidence which was lead by both the parties. This Court, therefore, cannot set aside the finding of facts 3 (SA 419 of 2010) recorded by both the Courts below by coming to a different conclusion. No substantial question of law is raised. Second appeal is dismissed and disposed of. Civil Application does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)