1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO.106 OF 2008. Shri Chandrakant Putu Dessai Son of Putu Dessai, major in age, Married, businessman, resident of house No.604, Davoxet, Xeldem, Quepem, Goa .. Appellant. Versus 1) Shri Sayyed Ibrahim aged 59 years,married, driver, resident of near Petrol Pump, H.No.not known Municipal Square, Quepem, Goa 2) Shri Sheikh Abdul Rashid aged 49 years, married, service, C/o Shamin Rashid, Resident of H.No. Not known 3) Smt. Mumtaz Bi wife of Shaikh Abdul Rashid Both r/o Davodxet, Xeldem Goa. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the appellant. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date of reserving the order :28 th November, 2008. Date of pronouncing the order : 4 th December, 2008. ORDER : 1. The appellant has filed the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2008 passed by the 2 learned Ad hoc District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.53/2008 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No.12/1995. 2. The appellant herein filed the above suit against the respondents / defendants seeking permanent and mandatory injunction. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had constructed soak pit and septic tank in violation of building bye-laws by not keeping distance of 15 metres on account of which the dirty water from the soak pit, was percolating in the well thereby contaminating the water in the well which was being used by the plaintiff, his family members and local residents in case of emergency. The suit was contested. The Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties held that the plaintiff was not able to prove that on account of the use of soak pit and septic tank by the defendants, the water from the suit well was contaminated. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff had not proved that the soak pit and septic tank were constructed in violation of building bye-laws and consequently the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court also held that the plaintiff had not established that by the use of soak pit and septic tank by the defendants, the water in the well was getting polluted. 3 3. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below, have erred in relying upon the evidence of the Commissioner Shri Premanand S. Phaldessai, who was appointed by the Court to measure the distance between the well and soak pit since his appointment was limited for the purpose of deciding the temporary injunction application and since he was not examined as a witness, his evidence could not have been relied upon by both the Courts below. He further submitted that the evidence of Dr. Vishnu Vaidya, who was appointed as Commissioner to examine the quality of the water in the well, does not inspire confidence. According to the learned Counsel, the plaintiff / appellant has established by leading cogent evidence that the construction of soak pit and septic tank, was in violation of building bye-laws and further that by the use of the said soak pit and septic tank, the water in the well of the plaintiff, was getting polluted. Mr. Kakodkar submitted that the Appellate Court has not formulated the points for determination under Order XLI, Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the impugned decree is liable to be set aside. He therefore, submitted that the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the memo of appeal. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, I find no merit in the present appeal. Even if the evidence of the Commissioner Mr. Premanand Phaldessai, is 4 excluded from consideration, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has not been able to establish by leading cogent evidence that the soak pit and septic tank, are at a distance of less than 15 metres from the well. Moreover, the evidence of Dr. Vishnu Vaidya clearly establishes that the water in the well of the plaintiff, was not polluted only on account of the use of the soak pit and septic tank by the defendants. This being the position, in my considered opinion, the appellant/ plaintiff has not made out any case for interference by this Court with the impugned order. 5. In so far as the submission of Mr. Kakodkar that the Appellate Court has not formulated proper points for determination as required under Order XLI, Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code is concerned, I find that the submission has no merit. Merely because several issues were framed in the suit, the Appellate Court was not bound to frame equal number of points for determination. The perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the appellate Court has addressed itself to the relevant points arising in the appeal and has rendered the decision. In any case, I find that no substantial question of law, is involved in the present appeal. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that unless substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the appeal cannot be admitted. 6. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal. The 5 appeal is, therefore, summarily rejected. A.P. LAVANDE, J. SMA