1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2007 (Shalinibai Shriram Dodke & Ors. vs. Ratanlal Nathulal Sahu) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2009. Heard Shri Mohta, counsel for the appellants – original defendants and Shri Kendurkar, learned counsel for the respondent – original plaintiff. The challenge is to the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below. In earlier suit, after hearing both learned counsel at length and at their joint request, the fresh report from TILR was called to find out whether there is in fact any encroachment by present appellants or not. Accordingly, the said report has come. The report is being objected by the appellants – defendants as being incorrect on the ground that the construction portions (buildings) have not been measured by TILR. Shri Kendurkar, learned counsel states that TILR has measured the entire plot and as East – 2 West wall adjacent to well has been moved inside the plot of present respondent, there is encroachment to the extent of 17'.8' x 2'. Both the Courts have after appreciation of evidence decreed the suit of present respondent after noticing the encroachment accordingly and recent report of TILR submitted as per order dated 25.9.2008 shows that the wall ND is 17' 8” and the length of the respondent's plot which should have been 35' has been reduced to 33' thereby indicating that wall ND has been moved 2' inside into the plot of respondent. Similarly, the property of present appellant has also been measured and it has been found that distance ED which should have been 8' 6” is actually 10' 3” on spot. It is to be noticed that CDE are the points on same wall in one straight line. Thus, this distance ED as available on record again indicates that the appellants – defendants have shifted wall ND by 2' into the plot of present respondent. It is an admitted position that between wall ND and wall in the plot of present appellants, there is some gap. The said gap has not been shown by TILR but in view of the measurement taken, not showing that gap is of no significance. Similarly, the relevant measurements have been taken and for 3 those measurements, the length of structure or measurement of any structure was not necessary. Shri Mohta, learned counsel has argued that at place ND there are two walls. He states that one wall is of present appellants and thereafter there is separate wall touching the wall of respondent. He points out that said wall is in existence prior to 1964 and he invites attention to map Exh. 46 in support of his contention. The perusal of said map at Exh. 46 shows that there the points ED are shown as points DE and the length of that wall is shown 11' 6”. Such length was not the case before any of the Courts below. I, therefore, do not find any case being made out enabling this court to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Mohta, learned counsel states that status quo which is operating should be continued till 23rd March 2009 to enable the appellants to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. Shri Kendurkar, learned counsel fairly gives his no objection. In the circumstances, interim order to continue till 23rd March 2009 and shall cease to 4 operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE *GS.