1 (SA198/2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.198 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIN NO.499 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.198 OF 2011 Smt. Shakuntala Dattatraya Kumbhakarna ..... Appellant. V/s Shri Balkrishna Shankar Likhite (since deceased) by his heirs 1.1 Shri Prajyot Balkrishna Lihite & Ors ..... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Palsuledesai for the appellant. Mr. R.B. Paranjape with Mr. J.D. Khairnar for respondent Nos. 1(2) and 1(3). CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 8th April, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The obstructionist notice was initiated against the appellant since she obstructed execution of decree which was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in a suit which was filed by him for eviction of the husband of the appellant in the trial court in 1986. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. Appeal which was filed 2 (SA198/2011) was dismissed. Second Appeal which was filed in this Court was withdrawn unconditionally. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated. However, the appellant herein who is admittedly the wife of original Defendant obstructed the execution. In the obstructionist application it was contended that the suit premises was 10 ft. X 6 ft. whereas the suit which was filed was in respect of the premises which was admeasuring 12 ft. X 10 ft. An application was filed by the obstructionist for leading evidence. The Trial Court rejected the application by giving detailed reasons. During the pendency of the suit, no ground was raised about discrepancy in the measurement of the premises and it has come on record that Municipal Corporation had demolished part of the premises for road widening. The Courts below have observed that no documentary evidence was produced by the obstructionist in support of her case and, therefore, the question of permitting her to lead evidence did not arise. 3. No substantial question of law is raised in this Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Since the Second Appeal itself is dismissed and disposed of, Civil Application No.499/2011 does not survive and it is disposed of accordingly. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3 (SA198/2011)