: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 APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.436 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.436 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.436 OF 2008 Shri Bhairu Balappa Bhurguda, and one another ...Appellants. v. Shri Sidhappa Nagappa Bhurguda, and one another ...Respondents. Mr.D.B.Patil , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.Vikas M. Mali , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th September, 2008. DATE: 8th September, 2008. DATE: 8th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This is the second appeal filed by the original defendant nos.1 and 2. The respondent no.1 before this Court is the original plaintiff while the respondent no.2 is the original defendant no.3. 3. The plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.42 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Gadhinglaj for perpetual injunction. According to him, he is the owner of the open plot bearing city survey no.279. To the Eastern side, it is bounded by the city survey no.278 which belongs to the defendant nos.1 and 2 and to the Western side by city survey no.280, which belongs to the defendant no.3. Plaintiff resides in his :2: field and taking benefit of his absence from his plot, defendants were trying to make encroachment on his plot in violation of city survey boundaries. Therefore, he sought a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing city survey boundaries and possession of the plaintiff over the plot bearing city survey no.279. Defendants contested suit by filing written statement. According to them, there is a common lane between the city survey nos.278 and 279 and the plaintiff is trying to grab that common lane. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant nos.1 and 2 preferred the regular civil appeal no.20 of 2000. That appeal was also dismissed. 4. There are concurrent findings of the facts recorded by both the Courts that there is no common lane and that disputed one meter wide open space, which according to the defendants is the common lane, is a part and parcel of city survey no.278 belonging to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. 5. Therefore, the second appeal stands dismissed summarily. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)