1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2008 (Smt. Shobhadevi Sureshsingh Rathor vs. Ashok @ Chunnu Bhagwandin Shukal & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 28, 2009. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for appellant – plaintiff and Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents – original defendants. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and for removal of encroachment and it has been concurrently dismissed. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff was not aware about the area or boundaries of her plot or also about alleged encroachment or area in her possession. She also could not disclose who carried out the alleged construction over portion of her plot. Her witness in cross examination accepted that labour charges for construction of Well were paid jointly by father of plaintiff as well as by father of defendants. He could not confidently state whether Well was situated on the plot of plaintiff or of defendants. The 2 consideration of entire evidence reveals that the case as pleaded by the appellant was not made out at all. The case was of encroachment with a view to grab the portion of the Well. The learned counsel states that the application for appointment of measurer was made though “no objection” was given by the other side, it was not granted. It is further contended that before the appellate Court some revenue records were sought to be produced under provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC and though that permission was granted, those records are not considered by the lower appellate Court. In present state of affairs, it is apparent that when basic facts are not available on record, there was no scope for appointment of any measurer or then going through any revenue record or other records. The burden was upon the appellant – plaintiff to establish her basic case and if there were any scope and need thereafter, the measurements or revenue evidence could have been looked into. I, therefore, find that no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *GS.