1 sa638.11.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14653 OF 2011 [Yasin Chhaganbhai Shaikh & Ors. vs. Abdul Raheman Jamadar dead Lrs.Hajarabi Abdul Raheman Shaikh & Ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. G.V. Wani,Advocate for appellants- applicants. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, the point raised before the Courts below that the measurement carried out by the Court commissioner is on the basis of old record of the Survey Numbers and not on the basis 2 sa638.11.11 of the new record, is not considered by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. According to the Counsel for appellants, second appeal deserves consideration. Learned Counsel for the appellant further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the second appeal and submitted that, the second appeal deserves consideration. 3. Upon perusal of the grounds taken in the second appeal, none of the grounds taken in the second appeal deserves consideration. The contention of the Counsel for the appellants that, the point about carrying out the measurement on the basis of old record is concerned, the lower appellate Court in para-9 has dealt with the said point. The lower appellate Court while considering the aforesaid point raised by the appellants, observed that it is not the case of the appellants that 3 sa638.11.11 during consolidation any two survey numbers or more survey numbers were amalgamated and therefore, there was change in the old revenue record or land record of land Gat NO. 65. Therefore, from perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court and the trial Court, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. On the basis of the report of the Court Commissioner which was duly proved by the Court Commissioner, the Courts have recorded that the appellants herein have encroached 23 Are portion of the land of respondents. No case is made out for interference. No any substantial question of law arise in this second appeal. Same stands dismissed summarily. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/DEC11