1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 606 of 2004 With Civil Application No.9245 of 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the appellant. Learned Advocate took me through the judgment of the trial court as well as first appellate court. It is clear that as per certified copy of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 1964, there was compromise between the parties about the property in question and the present defendant admitted plaintiff’s right and allowed the drainage line to pass through his (defendant’s) property. In view of said compromise, right of the plaintiff to pass sewerage water 2 through defendant’s property is proved. 2. In this case, plaintiff has not examined himself, but court commissioner is examined on his behalf to prove obstruction created by defendant to drainage water flow. Defendant has also not entered into witness box. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of court commissioner, who is an independent witness. 3. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and hence, the appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage. 4. Civil Application No.9245 of 2009 does not survive, in view of dismissal of appeal. Date:16.06.2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa606.04 3