1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2008 Anand Bhaskar Korgaonkar ........Appellant versus Sulabha Raghunath Parkar & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Mhaispurkar adv. for the Appellant Mr. Sachin Gite h/f M.S.Karnik adv. for the respondent no.1 CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 15th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Mhaispukar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gite for the respondent no.1. 2. The respondent no.1 filed suit for partition and separate possession which was partly decreed. Respondent no.1 being agrreived, filed appeal before the lower appellate court which was allowed and it was held that respondent no.1 has 1/9 share in the suit property. She thereafter filed application for issuing final decree of partition and giving her share. The court commissioner was appointed for suggesting partition and the commissioner submitted the report which was objected by the present appellant. The objections were considered by the trial 2 court and 1/9 share of the respondent no.1 is carved out as per the suggestions of the commissioner. The appellant challenged the above said order by filing regular civil appeal before the lower appellate court which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Both the courts below found that the draft of the partition proposed by Court Commissioner is workable, equitable an divisible as much as it is not causing the prejudice to any of the judgment debtor. 3. Mr. Mhaispurkar learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if partition as proposed by the court commissioner is accepted in that case, the middle wall was required to be demolished and new wall is required to be constructed and therefore the partition is not equitable. In my view this is not a ground on which second appeal can be entertained. Be that as it may, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the possession of the premises which is alloted to her share is already taken in pursuant to the trial court's order. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R. V. More, J.) 3