1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.681 OF 2007. Murlidhar S/o Gopalrao Dhawle and others ... Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate for the appellants. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Smt.Sanghmitra Wadmare, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. The plaintiffs had filed suit for injunction 2 restraining the defendants from obstructing the pathway from Gat No.114 to allow them to go to their cattle-shed. Both the Courts dismissed the suit. The appellants/original plaintiffs have assailed the said judgments through this Court. 2. Mr.Bedre, learned counsel for the appellants contended that lower appellate Court has not framed proper points for determination and as such has failed to perform its duty as the first appellate Court is the last fact finding Court and has to reappreciate the whole evidence by framing proper points for determination. According to him, even the Commissioner was appointed by the Court, who stated that there is a pathway. Mr.Bedre, learned counsel further submitted that the measurement map which was on the basis of the application of the present Respondent could not be placed on record before the trial Court because of the mistake of the advocate and as such the application for additional evidence for the production of the said measurement map deserves to be allowed. The measurement map would depict existence of the 3 road and the existence of the cattle-shed of the plaintiff. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and the application for additional evidence. 4. Prior to filing of the present suit, the applicants had moved the Tahsildar invoking the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for creation of the pathway. It is not disputed that the Tahsildar is the competent authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to deal with the dispute about the way. The order of the Tahsildar is at Exh.55. The Courts have discussed the said order passed by the Tahsildar, wherein the plaintiff himself has made an application for creation of pathway. The Tahsildar had rejected the said application. The said order has become final. The plaintiffs have not assailed the said order. It was stated that the said order was challenged before the Sub- Divisional Officer, wherein the said appeal is 4 also dismissed. 5. When the competent authority has arrived at a conclusion and the said judgment has become final. The said judgment is not assailed before the Civil Court then in such circumstances, the said order can not be circumvented by approaching the Civil Court. Moreover, the lower appellate Court has also discussed the entire evidence and has concurred with the view of the trial Court. Though the point of determination was framed with regard to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court are proper or calls for interference. The judgment shows the appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence on record. So non-framing of the points for determination as agitated by Mr.Bedre, learned counsel would not be fatal nor render the judgment illegal. Moreover, the appellate Court concurred with the finding of fact. In such circumstances, the objection regarding non-framing of points for determination can not be considered. The additional evidence sought to be produced also would be of no avail 5 to the appellant in view of dictum of the competent authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In such circumstances, the Second Appeal being sans any substantial question of law is dismissed along with application for production of additional evidence. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa681.07