1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2007 (Vivek Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit & Anr. vs. Rambhau Isulal Bopache & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 28, 2009. Heard Shri Tembhare, learned counsel for appellants - defendants and Shri Khandekar, learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs. The challenge is to the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondents – plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that it was consistent case of the respondents – plaintiffs that area of their property was 0.31 Hectare and the measurer has found that said area is 0.33 Hectare. He further claims that the measurer was appointed by the trial Court vide its order dated 21.7.1994 and while nominating DILR as authority for that purpose, said authority was directed to obtain instructions directly from the Court. Those instructions were not obtained and 2 therefore, there is wrong measurement. He contends that these aspects are lost sight of by both the Courts. During hearing, he has produced before the Court the measurement map drawn by DILR. The learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs argues that the land till Dhura AB is and was in possession of the respondents – plaintiffs and it was never the case of the appellants that any land beyond dhura was purchased by them and was in their possession. With the assistance of both the counsel, I have perused the judgments. The respondents – plaintiffs claimed that their field extended till dhura AB. The measurer has found that the said field Survey No. 39/1 was having area of 0.33 Hectare while the land of present appellant was 0.28 Hectare. Shri Tembhare, learned counsel has urged that a road passing through Survey No. 39/2 has not been taken into account by DILR. However, it is apparent from the measurement map that the said authority found that its original area 0.32 Hectare was not available and it was only 0.28 Hectare up to dhura AB. It is also disclosed that a road was passing adjacent to said land and that portion has been demarcated as GHJI with area about 0.4 R. 3 The said road is on the other side of dhura AB and parallel to it. Thus, this position of map and the judgments clearly show that the arguments being raised are misconceived. In any case if the appellants wanted DILR to have any specific instructions from the Court in compliance with the order, that could have been done immediately before measurement or even after the report of measurer. Even today before this court, what type of instructions were necessary and what is prejudice caused because of absence of such instructions, is not pointed out. In view of this, no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.