1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.119 OF 2009. Shrikrishna S/o Baburao Bhosale, Age 37 years, Occ.Business, R/o Naralibaag, Dist. Aurangabad... Appellant. Versus The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner,Aurangabad. ... Respondent. ... Mr.Ajay Shinde, advocate holding for Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.N.Pagare, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff. He filed suit for injunction simpliciter alleging 2 that he was allotted open plot by the Respondent - Municipal Corporation to run "Zunka Bhakar Kendra" after due demarcation thereof in or about 1996. He invested certain amount and developed the plot. He obtained electricity connection and raised temporary construction thereon. He was running the Zunka Bhakar Kendra in the said premises. The defendant obstructed his possession and, therefore, he filed the suit (RCS No.456/2007). The suit came to be dismissed. The appeal preferred by him vide RCA No.293/2008 also came to be dismissed. Both the Courts rendered concurrent findings that the plaintiff (appellant) failed to give proper description of the plot in question and also his case was not supported by any document such as Resolution of the Municipal Council for the purpose of allotment. He did not file any sketch of the suit plot as required U/o VII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held that since Zunka Bhakar Scheme was closed in 2000 and because the appellant was unable to prove the nature of investment and the continuity of the possession 3 as licensee in respect of specific plot, injunction decree was not warranted. 3. The questions involved in the Second Appeal are purely questions of facts. The Apex Court in "Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1975, held that finding of fact, however, wrong or grossly inexcusable, are not liable to be interfered with in Second Appeal and as such Second Appeal is barred by Section 100 of the C.P.C. In this view of the matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa11909