1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2010 Sushilabai Wamanrao Kavle .... APPELLANT VERSUS Sulochana Vasant Londhe & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. L.K.Pradhan, Advocate for appellant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 23/08/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The appellant impugns the Judgment passed by the Adhoc District Judge – 2, Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No. 69 of 2010 dismissing the Appeal filed by the present appellant against the Judgment and Order passed by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division), Ahmednagar dated 9/2/2010 in an Objection Petition filed under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 2. It is the case of the appellant that though the appellant was the necessary party to the Suit, as the appellant was in possession, she was not made party and the Decree came to be obtained by the present respondent no. 1 against the original defendants. 3. Mr. L.K.Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Courts below relied only on the bailiff’s report and have not considered other evidence on record. As such, have failed to exercise the jurisdiction and the Judgments suffer from non appreciation of material evidence. 4. From the perusal of the Judgments passed by the Courts below, it is manifest that the opportunity has been given to the parties to adduce evidence. Both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in possession on the date of an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even the witnesses of the appellant have not supported the case of the appellant. 5. The Appeal is based on concurrent findings of facts. No substantial question of law arises. As such, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 3 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/ SA 444.2010