1 S.A. 689.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 689 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for simplicitor injunction, for carrying measurement and for possession of encroached area. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that it was an error on the part of the Courts in not relying on 2 S.A. 689.2010 the consolidation scheme. The same has become final. That could have not been reopened in the Civil Court. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the consolidation scheme, the record losses its significance and the same ought not to have been considered by the lower Courts. The learned counsel contends that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the oral evidence on record and the position of the property. As such, have arrived at erroneous conclusion. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 5. The Courts below have considered the actual position of the property, the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the defendants are in possession of the said property. The Courts have also discussed about the earlier partition held in the year 1959 and the factum of S.No. 63/A being allotted to Piru and further conversion to Gut numbers. On evaluation of the evidence , so also taking into account the physical possession, the Courts have come to the conclusion. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view is possible. 3 S.A. 689.2010 6. In light of the same, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and as such disposed of. Needless to state that the appellant is at liberty to take any other appropriate proceedings as are available in law. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 689.2010