1 S.A. No. 659.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 659 OF 2010 Gopinath S/o Kisan Raut .. APPELLANT VERSUS Raosaheb S/o Ganpati Raut ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20h December, 2010. PER COURT : This is defendant’s Second Appeal. The present respondent had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the use of the foot way by the plaintiff over Bandh from Survey No. 518 and 523. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The defendant has assailed 2 S.A. No. 659.2010 the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that during the pendency of the suit the Commissioner was appointed who has visited the site and had submitted the map, wherein it is specifically shown that there is an alternate way available to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot use the said foot way from the land of the defendant. According to the learned Counsel the Courts below have perversely appreciated the evidence, they have not considered the deposition of the witnesses in correct perspective and have overlooked the Commissioners report. 3. Perusal of the Judgments show that the courts have relied on the admissions given by the appellant himself. In his deposition he categorically admitted that there is a Bandh between the land survey No. 523 on one side and Survey No. 517 and 518 from other side and he is using the said foot way for himself. He has also 3 S.A. No. 659.2010 admitted that the respondent is residing in Survey No. 518 along with his family members. Even vendor of the defendant has been examined by the plaintiff who has also admitted the existence of the foot way as claimed by the plaintiff since time immemorial. 4. In the light of above, the courts have arrived at plausible conclusion. The existence of alternate way would not be an impediment to the plaintiff to claim the relief in the present matter. In the light of the same, Second Appeal being devoid of substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*