1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2007 Murlidhar Tukaram Bhise ...Appellant vs Shankarlal Sonilal Toshniwal & ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.S. Kanetkar i/b G.S. Godbole for the appellant. Mr. Dilip Bodake for the respondent No.1A. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16 TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel. The appellant is the original defendant against whom the trial court decreed the suit for injunction and the first appellate court dismissed his appeal (RCS No. 162/2000). 2. The appellant received the premises in question in family partition. The respondent was a tenant in possession of the 2 premises. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the main dispute is regarding use of the latrine and the passage which is situated on the northern side of the tenement. He submits that the lease deed (Exhibit­104) was not properly construed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The description shown in the lease document shows that the tenement was leased out in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) and the latrine was shown alongwith the open space being on northern side thereof. The latrine and the open space i.e. passage have been proved to be under user of the tenant since long. The counsel for the appellant submits that during the intervening period, interim order was passed and, therefore, the appellant was also using the latrine and the passage. The trial court seems to have duly considered the evidence on record. It is observed: “If the latrine was in common enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendant, defendant No.1 would have certainly justified that the connection (electricity and water tap) is with the lessor. If the 3 plaintiffs are the licencees of the open space and the latrine, the defendants could have definitely charged for the same or would not have allowed the plaintiff to connect the electricity and water supply.” 3. Needless to say, on appreciation of evidence, and particularly because the electricity connection and the water connection stand in the name of the plaintiff, the injunction decree has been rendered. It is well settled that in the Second Appeal, re­appreciation of evidence is impermissible. Both the courts have decided the issues involved in the suit on the basis of the available material and only on facts. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 5. The interim relief, if any, to continue for six weeks. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)