: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.482 OF 2003. SECOND APPEAL NO.482 OF 2003. SECOND APPEAL NO.482 OF 2003. Murlidhar Shankar Chaskar ..Appellant Versus Sambhaji Darku Chaskar since deceased through his legal heirs Ankush Sambhaji Chaskar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.A.Garge for the appellant CORAM: S.R.SATHE, J. CORAM: S.R.SATHE, J. CORAM: S.R.SATHE, J. DATE : 23rd June, 2005 DATE : 23rd June, 2005 DATE : 23rd June, 2005 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant. The Plaintiff’s suit for injunction was decreed in his favour. However, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the claim holding that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendant has no right to take water out of the suit well. Though prayer was made regarding mandatory injunction for removal of the electric meter installed on the well, the Appellate Court found that the said meter was installed about several years back and since then the Plaintiff has not taken any action. The First Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the admissions given by P.W.2 wherein he has clearly admitted that the Defendant is having right to take water. 2. Appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial : 2 : question of law has been formulated and there is in fact no substantial question of law involved. Hence appeal is dismissed in limini. (S.R.SATHE, J.)