1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1634 OF 2008 Shivaram Ramchandra Sawant ........Appellant versus Shankar Hari Chavan........ Respondent. Mr. V.S. Kapse adv. for the Appellant Mr. S.M. Railkar adv. for the respondent CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 03rd DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kapse learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Railkar for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondents are original plaintiffs. The respondent/plaintiff's suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction is decreed and appellant/defendant is directed to remove the encroachment and restore suit road to its original position. The trial court's decree though challenged in the lower appellate court, the same was confirmed. Both the lower courts below concurrently recorded the finding that the respondent/plaintiff established that the suit road was having width of 12 feet. A concurrent finding of fact has also recorded by the lower 2 appellate court that the appellant has encroached upon the suit road to the extent of 7 feet in width and obstructed the same. In view of this finding of fact, injunction asked for by the respondent has granted. Both the lower courts below relied upon Exh.15 i.e. the lay out plan which establish the respondent's case about existence of the suit way. I do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the lower courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 2. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)