1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2009 Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Shanti Sarwar Parakashan .. RESPONDENT Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.B. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration that detention of the vehicle and books belonging to the college by the defendants is illegal and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release the vehicle and the reference books. Plaintiff also prays for decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from charging and demanding octroi duty 2 leviable on the books. It appears that the books were brought by the wholesaler for the purpose of holding exhibition in the city and the books brought did not attract octroi duty. However, the Municipal Corporation was of the opinion that the books are chargeable with octroi duty and as such demanded octroi charges to the extent of 2% of the value of the books together with 10 times penalty. Plaintiff failed to make the payment and as such, the vehicle and books were got detained. 3 Defendants controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff. It is contended that as per the octroi rules, defendant no. 2 is justified in making demand of the octroi duty chargeable on the books. Defendants as such pray for dismissal of the suit. 4 Trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties recorded finding that the plaintiff has substantiated his case. The books brought were for the purpose of exhibition and do not attract octroi duty. Trial court thus granted decree in favour of the plaintiff. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal in Regular Civil Appeal no. 80/2000 which came to be heard and disposed of by the 2 nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded who was pleased to dismiss the same in view of 3 judgment dt. 8-10-2002. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. The courts below have adopted reasonable approach in the matter which is based on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record by the parties. Findings of fact recorded by the courts below need not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa521.09.odt