:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1167 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1167 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1167 OF 2008 M/s. Shri Saraswati Concrete Works ...Appellant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr.A.B.Borkar , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.B.H.Mehta AGP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 15th July, 2008. DATE: 15th July, 2008. DATE: 15th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The plaintiff/appellant claims to have purchased the property bearing City Survey No.195/2/Kh in ’E’ Ward, Kolhapur in 1957. According to the plaintiff, he is carrying on business of manufacturing cement pipes on the said land under the name and style as ’Saraswati Concrete Works’. According to him, there is a gate towards the Northern side of his plot and it opens on the Government land admeasuring 15 ft. X 70 ft. According to him, he has been using that road without any interruption and openly since 1957. Thus, he has easementary right of way. According to him, he has no other passage to approach his factory on the said land and, therefore, he also claims easement of necessity. :2: However, by notice dated 9-12-1988, the Government directed him to stop using the piece of land as a passage. Being aggrieved by that notice, the plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration of easementary rights as well as perpetual injunction. The defendant/respondent contested the suit and denied that he had any easementary right of way or that he had any easement of necessity over the said land. The trial Court framed certain issues and after hearing the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he is using the said property of the Government for ingress and egress for more than 30 years. The trial Court also rejected the contention that the plaintiff had right of easement of necessity. Against dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.588 of 1994. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal directing the Government to provide 12 ft. wide approach road from the Northern side of the Government plot but rejected the contention of the plaintiff that he is entitled to have a passage through the gate, which is already in existence. Being not satisfied by the relief granted by the Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, it appears that the plaintiff had filed three suits one claiming easementary right from the Northern :3: side, another claiming easementry right of way from the Southern side and the third challenging the allotment of the plot to the Southern side to a society of destitute women. Both the suits about the Southern side were dismissed and even the appeals filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. The present litigation is pertaining to his claim from the Northern side. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiff has not proved his easementary right by way of prescription from the Northern side of the plot. The learned Appellate Court also noted that if the plaintiff is allowed to retain passage through the gate, which he had installed to the Northern side, the plot of the land belonging to the Government would be divided in two parts and thereby, it would be rendered useless. In spite of the fact that the plaintiff had no legal right, the Appellate Court directed the Government to provide 12 ft. wide passage from the Northern side of that plot so that the business of the plaintiff could be continued. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 3. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. :4: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)