1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.114 OF 2010 1 Madhav s/o Gangaram Tambile, age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Waghujali, Tq. Hingoli, District Hingoli. 2 Govind s/o Gangaram Tambile, age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Waghujali, Tq. Hingoli, District Hingoli. 3 Kailash s/o Gangaram Tambile, age: 31 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Waghjali, Tq. Hingoli, District Hingoli. Appellants Versus 1 Ramprasad s/o Ananda Ingale, age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Umra Motha, Tq. Washim. 2 Digambar s/o Laxman Tambile, age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Umra Motha, Tq.Washim. 3 Tahsildar, Hingoli. 4 Collector, Hingoli. 5 Laxman s/o Sakharam Tambile, age: 72 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Waghjali, Tq. Hingoli, District Hingoli. Respondents 2 Mr.Sachin S. Deshmukh, advocate for appellants. Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 18 th February, 2010. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by both the Courts below. 2 Plaintiffs instituted suit claiming right to way though the land belonging to defendants, which defendants disputed. 3 Both the Courts below have held against plaintiffs, principally, for the reason that on previous occasion also, suit requesting for grant of similar relief was presented by plaintiffs against defendants, being R.C.S. No. 214/1997. The suit came to be withdrawn without any liberty. Plaintiffs, thus, abandoned their claim. The subsequent suit, based on same cause of action, for same relief was, therefore, held not to be entertainable. There does not appear to be any error in the view adopted by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 4 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa114.10