1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.557 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.557 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.557 OF 2007 Hari Sawala Bhise : Appellant versus Smt.Jyotiprabha Jaiprakash Yadav : Respondent. Mr.R.S.Apte i/by Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the appellant. Mr.Girish Godbole i/by Mr.Ashok Tajane for respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. There are concurrent findings against the appellant herein. The Second Appeal, in my opinion, does not raise any substantial question of law. The point of res-judicata and that the suit is within limitation has been dealt with by the Courts below and decided against the Appellant. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that the possession of the Appellant was permissive in nature. As indicated above, the Appeal does not raise any substantial 2 question of law, hence the same is dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the protection granted by this Court on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 be continued for a period of four weeks so as to enable the appellant to adopt such proceedings as may be permissible in law. Hence the protection granted earlier to continue for further period of four weeks from date, on the condition that the appellant shall not create any encumbrance or part with possession of the land in question during the said period. 2. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]