IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2011 MRS.BONITA D'SOUZA ... Appellant Versus SHRI P. J. AUGUSTINE ... Respondent Mr. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 7th June, 2011 P.C. Heard Ms. A. Dessai, learned Advocate for the appellant. 2. By this Second Appeal appellant takes exception to the Judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed by the District Judge-I, North Goa, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal no. 93/2008 dismissing the appeal against Judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.121/2000/C filed by the respondent. 3. Respondent/plaintiff filed above suit seeking injunction in respect of two rooms which he claims he was in possession. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence held that plaintiff had proved possession in respect of two rooms. The lower appellate Court concurred with the finding given by the trial Court. However the lower appellate Court observed that injunction shall remain in force till the plaintiff is evicted from the suit premises by following due process of law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference with the decree passed by the lower appellate Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In my considered opinion the lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in upholding decree passed by the trial Court and modifying the same to the extent that the injunction would remain in force till the plaintiff is evicted from the suit premises by following due process of law. The finding recorded by both the Courts that the plaintiff was in possession of the two rooms is borne out from the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in second appeal. In any case no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and hence second appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn