1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.329/2008 SANJAY WADETTIWAR ..VS.. GURUDAS PENDOR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 22 /12 / 2010 Heard Shri Bhishikar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kotwal, the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over 0.76 H.R. of land from khasara no.68. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the khasara no.68 admeasuring 2.36 H.R. and the defendant was trying to encroach upon 0.76 H.R. of land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant filed his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of khasara no.68. The defendant however, denied that he was trying to encroach upon the land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had been successful in proving that he was in possession of the land and 2 the plaintiff had an apprehension that the defendant was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The courts, after considering the facts on record held that the plaintiff was the owner of khasara no.68 and also that the defendant never tried to encroach upon the plaintiff’s property. In such circumstances, the courts held that there was no impediment in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In this case, the failure on the part of the plaintiff to properly describe 0.76 H.R. of land on which defendant tried to encroach was not fatal to the case of the plaintiff as the defendant had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over khasara no.68 and had also stated that he was not intending to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit poverty. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.