SA No. 99 of 2008 Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Sri M.S. Bisht, and Sri Anil Dabral, learned counsel for the plaintiff / appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2008, passed by first appellate court (District Judge, Pauri), in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2005, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30th June 2005, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal), in Suit No. 37 of 2003 is affirmed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff / appellant instituted a suit against the defendants for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising constructions over the disputed public path. The plaintiff’s case was that there was 10 ft. wide rasta land at the spot which is intended to be encroached upon by the defendants. The defendants have taken the plea that width of the rasta land was 8 ft. and not 10 ft. as pleaded by the plaintiff. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties found that plaintiff failed to prove that 10 ft. rasta land was ever left for the parties. The lower appellate court also after hearing the parties concurred with the view taken by the trial court and affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, as there is concurrent finding of fact in the matter. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (P.C.P., J.) 15.12.2008 NS