( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2009 Shaikh Mubarak s/o Shaikh Mahboob APPELLANT VERSUS Namdeo s/o Shahadeo Narwade RESPONDENT ..... Smt. A.N. Ansari, advocate for the appellant. Mrs. A.S. Rasal, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The appellant is original defendant. The respondent filed suit for injunction vide R.C.S. No. 87/2003. The suit came to be decreed. The appeal preferred by the present appellant before the first Appellate Court vide RC.A. No. 24/2007 came to be ( 2 ) dismissed. Thus, there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below. 3. Smt. Ansari would wubmit that the Courts below committed patent error while not taking into account panchanamas drawn by the revenue authorities vide Exh-64. It is contended that the revenue authorities had allotted the way from over the common bandh but the plaintiff lateron filed a suit for injunction in order to avoid the compliance. It appears from the record that the trial Court rendered affirmative finding on the issue No.2 pertaining to availability of another way to the defendant (appellant) to reach his land. It is true that the parties have purchased their shares from the same vendor. However, when the alternative way of access is available to the defendant, he cannot be permitted to insist to use the common bandh for the purpose of egrace and ingrace to reach his land. In any case, these are findings of facts and no perversity can be noticed while causing appreciation of the evidence. It appears that the panchanamas (Exh-62 and Exh-68) are duly considered by the Courts below while appreciating ( 3 ) the evidence of DW2. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa741-09