( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7732 OF 2009 Kanhayyalal Baban Bhamre (Shimpi) APPELLANT VERSUS Sambhaji Baburao Patil and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.P. Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari, advocate for the appellant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff whose suit (R.C.S. No. 72/2003) for recovery of encroached portion admeasuring 65 sq.mtrs. and injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and the said judgement was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. ( 2 ) 3. The plaintiff (appellant) heavily relied on report of Cadestral Surveyor. He examined PW2 Satish Borse, who carried out the measurement of the land. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court noticed that admittedly, the part of the land gat No. 56 was purchased by the defendant No. 2 from the defendant No. 1 on 25-09-2002. It was also noticed that the Cadestral Surveyor did not carry out comprehensive measurement. No notices were given to the adjacent land holders. The measurement of only gat Nos. 53 and 54 were carried out in absence of the concerned neighbouring land holders. Having regard to deficiencies found in the version of the Cadestral Surveyor, it was held by both the Courts that the plaintiff (appellant) failed to prove the encroachment. There is no perversity in the finding of both the Courts. The counsel would submit that composite measurement could have been directed. At the appellate stage, the appellant did not seek such direction from the first Appellate Court and, therefore, such a request cannot be considered nor it can be termed as substantial question of law involved. The grounds raised in the appeal memo relate to mere appreciation of the evidence. ( 3 ) Under the circumstances, the second appeal is outside the scope of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and is dismissed. No costs. 4. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application No. 7732/2009 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa540-09