(1) SA. 998.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2004 Dnyaneshwar s/o Sitaram Bhavsar and ors. .. Appellants VERSUS Shikharchand S/o Lalchand Jain and ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4917 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2004 Dnyaneshwar s/o Sitaram Bhavsar and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS Shikharchand S/o Lalchand Jain and ors. .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7051 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2004 Dnyaneshwar s/o Sitaram Bhavsar and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS Shikharchand S/o Lalchand Jain and ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the appellants/applicants Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the respondent no.1 Mr. H.M. Karwa, Advocate for the respondent no.2 Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar),Advocate for the respondent no.3 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below (2) SA. 998.2004 that the appellants who were the defendants in the lower Court, had committed encroachment on the public road and public property on the eastern side, in front of their shop which is with them as tenant of the respondent no.1-the original plaintiff. The complaint of the respondent no.1 say that due to the encroachment on public road with erection of a temporary shed made of wooden members and tin sheets roof, has not only obstructed his access to his other property but has also created hurdle in the drainage line. The appellants' defence that the offending structure was in existence since long time etc. was rejected by the Courts below. 2] I am told the offending structure has now been removed. The finding of the Courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law. So, the Appeal should fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application no. 4917 of 2005 and 7051 of 2004 also stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp