(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1387 OF 2004 1. Bhujangrao Satwaji Patil (Kinhalkar), Died per L.Rs. : 1A. Shashikalabai Bhujangrao Patil (Kinhalkar), Age : 75 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Bhokar, Taluka : Bhokar, District : Nanded. 1B. Dr. Madhavrao Bhujangrao Kinhalkar, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Medical Practice, R/o. Vasant Nagar, Nanded. 1C. Satish Bhujangrao Kinhalkar, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Business. 1D. Aruna Dnyanoba Gore, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Household. 1E. Lata Prataprao Jadhav, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household. 1F. Kusum Ajit Pawar, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Household All R/o. Vasant Nagar, Nanded. (2) 2. Tulshiram s/o. Satwaji Patil (Kintalkar), Age : 67 years, .. Appellants Occupation : Agriculturist, (Original R/o. Bhokar, Taluka : Bhokar, plaintiffs) District : Nanded. versus 1. Mohanbhai Laxmanbhai Kathoriya, Died per L.Rs. : 1/A. Shantabai Mohanbhai Kathoriya, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Household. 1/B. Lala Mohanbhai Kathoriya, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Business. 1/C. Shobha Mohanbhai Kathoriya, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Household. 1/D. Mangal Mohanbhai Kathoriya, .. Respondents Age : 24 years, (Original defendants) Occupation : Household. All R/o. Ashoknagar, Bhokar, Taluka : Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. 2. Babusingh s/o. Chatrusingh Chavan, .. Appeal abated as Age : 57 years, against respondent Occupation : Agriculturist, no.2 as per court's R/o. Bhokar, order dated 7-5-2009. Taluka : Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ....................... (3) Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1/A to 1/D. Appeal abated as against respondent no.2 as per court's order dated 7-5-2009. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The dismissal of suit made the plaintiff to seek redressal before the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 250/1995 and simultaneously an application was moved for allowing to lead additional evidence as the plaintiff has led his hand to a sale deed dated 19th Aaban 1349 Fasli, as it could not be produced before the court of first instance. 2. Mr. R.M. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits, though laxity is seem to have been demonstrated by the plaintiff in attending the matter, as before the court of first instance, 25 adjournments were entertained at the instance of the plaintiff, still Counsel urged the matter (4) warrants remand, as the set of additional documents, according to him, establish his contentions of ownership. The Counsel reiterated to remand the matter either to the first appellate court or to the court of first instance. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, to remit the matter, is difficult to digest. Production of additional evidence presuppose pleadings. There is no such pleading in suit where removal of encroachment of 104 square feet is sought. An unfortunate part of the matter is, the plaintiff in the past, has faced action on behalf of the respondent, being Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1992 wherein injunction was clamped against the plaintiff and did not even at that stage, stake claim to the property in the manner plaintiff propagated in the present proceedings. The recklessness shown was writ large. There could not have further rounds of litigation for decades to coming generation. The reasons assigned by the first appellate court, particularly in paragraph 36 of the judgment and the points formulated in not remitting the matter illustrate no error or perversity. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. No substantial question of law could be formulated. (5) 4. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa1387