( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1687 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11829 OF 2005 Ramrao Vithoba Somwanshi and ors. .. Appellants Versus Tahsildar, Ausa and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 13.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Choudhari for the appellants and A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele for respondent No.1. The Second Appeal is filed by original plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.230 of 2000, decided on 21.03.2002, whereby liberty was given to the defendants to enjoy right of way as allowed by defendant No.1 – Tahsildar by his order dated 10.04.2000. The First Appellate Court i.e. the Additional ( 2 ) District Judge, Latur, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 69 of 2002 and 78 of 2002 has held that the suit deserves to be dismissed as a whole and it could not have been even decreed partly, so as to prohibit the defendants from passing through the land of the plaintiff otherwise than for enjoyment of right by way granted by the defendant No.1. The appeal filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 5 is allowed and injunction not to otherwise disturb possession was set aside. 2. The First Appellate Court in para 24 of its judgment discussed the village map and the map drawn by the Court Commissioner and has come to the conclusion that there was no alternative road available to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 for approaching their land block No.500. There is also evidence of the Tahsildar. He is examined at Exh.39. He stated that the only convenient way is the access given by him by his order. Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve this part of the evidence. Even the Trial Court has accepted that the Tahsildar has followed necessary procedure and has granted right of way under Section 134 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. ( 3 ) 3. So far as other limb of the argument is concerned, it is stated by the First Appellate Court in para 28 of its judgment that there was no pleadings regarding obstruction by the defendants in the enjoyment of land otherwise by user of way. The learned advocate read out para 5 of the plaint from his file, but it does not appear that there are pleadings that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were not only using right of way allowed by the Tahsildar, but otherwise disturbing the enjoyment of the land by the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there are proper findings of facts. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. Therefore, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. 4. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal No.1687 of 2005, Civil Application No. 11629 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa1687.05