:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.434 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.434 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.434 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1095 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1095 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1095 OF 2008 Shri Aziz Moinnuddin Malbari & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Shri Namdeo Mahadev Tikone ...Respondent. Mr.Kishor Patil , adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 16th September, 2008. DATE: 16th September, 2008. DATE: 16th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellants before this Court are the original defendants. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit contending that certain shops constructed by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation were given to Bhoiraj Fisheries Co-operative Society for running fish market. The plaintiff being member of the said society was allotted shop no.2 on 14-2-2001 for a period of five years and he deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- and was to pay license fee and commission to the society as per the agreement. On 1-5-2002 defendants unauthorisedly entered into the shop and began to obstruct possession of the plaintiff therefore, plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction. According to the defendants, they were put in possession by one Bagadi to whom that shop :2: was allotted by the society. They also contended that the civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is not tenable for non-joinder of the necessary parties, namely, Bagadi and the society. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants preferred regular civil appeal no.260 of 2006. The appeal came to be dismissed. The Appellate Court specifically rejected the contention of the defendants about jurisdiction and non-joinder of the necessary party. Both the Courts gave concurrent findings that the plaintiff was in possession as a member and allottee of the society and that the defendants have no right over that shop. Therefore, the defendants have preferred the Second Appeal. 3. It appears that while the plaintiff is allotted suit shop by the society, defendants could not produce any record or evidence to show that the said shop was allotted to Bagadi and that they are put in possession by Bagadi. There are concurrent findings of the fact by both the Courts below. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 4. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no.1095 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)