1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No.531/2010 ( Vijay Narayan Admane & others ..V/s.. Shri Vinod S/o Gajanan Borkar & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : SMT. V.A NAIK, J. DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Shri Lakhnikar for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for removal of encroachment made by the defendants on the marginal space between the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs pleaded that the Municipal Council had also found that there was some illegal construction by the defendants in the marginal space and had therefore, issued a notice to the defendants to remove the same. The defendants had however, moved an application under section 376 (3) of the Nagpur Corporation Act in the District Court and a stay in regard to the notice was obtained. According to the plaintiffs, the illegal construction made by the defendants was causing great nuisance to the plaintiffs and therefore, the 2 suit was instituted. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and further denied that any illegal construction was made by them. According to the defendants, the construction carried out by them was within their boundary and was in accordance with the building bye-laws of the City of Nagpur Corporation. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiffs had also instituted some other proceedings against the defendants and the same being frivolous and baseless, the present suit was liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the defendants had opened doors and windows towards the house of the plaintiffs and had also made some illegal construction in the marginal space. The trial Court, therefore, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to demolish the construction. The findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed by the first Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the defendants. The first Appellate Court held that the defendants had not opened any doors and windows towards the house of the plaintiffs 3 as pleaded by the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court further held that the plaintiffs had not been successful in proving that the defendants had illegally constructed in the marginal space. The first Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands, as the plaintiffs had, in the year 1995 filed a suit against the defendants for encroachment and possession in respect of the suit property, which was dismissed by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed till the Supreme Court. The findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are pure findings of facts, based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record and since they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge Tambaskar.