1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2006 Indirabai D.Patkar & ors........Appellants versus Dombivli Madhyavarti Prathamik Sahakar Sanstha Maryadit & ors......... Respondents. Mr. M.V. Limaye for the Appellants Mr. Palsuledesai for the respondent no.1 CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Limaye learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Parsuledesai for the respondents. The appellants are the original Plaintiffs. Their suit for injunction restraining the respondents from constructing on an open place reserved for road widening was decreed by the trial court. The lower appellate court at the instance of the respondent reversed this decree and consequetly, Plaintiff's suit came to be dismised. The lower appellate court took into consideration, the pursis at Exhs. 20 and 21 signed by the parties to the appeal and filed before the trial court. By this pursis it is pointed out that the Corporation has demolished the structures and compound wall obstructing appellant's access to Mahatma Gandhi road. The 2 Appellate Court, in view of this pursis held that there is no question of grant of mandatory injunction and therefore allowed the appeal. Appellate Court has further observed in para 7 of the judgment and decree that Corporation has demolished the shop raised on the western portion of Mahatma Gandhi road, and therefore question of obstruction of access of Plaintiff does not arise. In view of this finding, the trial court's decree was set aside and appeal was allowed. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)