1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.590 OF 2010 Shri Dattatraya Ganapat Uparkar .. Appellant. Vs. Gopal Payaji Uparkar and ors .. Respondents. Mr.G.S.Rao i/b Lex Consultus, for the appellant. Mr. Dilip Bodake, for respondent nos 1 and 3A. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24/11/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction against respondent nos 1 to 3. Mr Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the courts below have committed grave error of law in dismissing the suit merely on the ground that defendant no.4-Sarpanch of the village was not examined by the plaintiff to prove contents of the notice at Exhibit-57 issued by the Gram Panchayat. He submitted that the Gram Panchayat had issued the notice (Exhibit-57) to respondent nos 1 to 3 asking them to remove the extended T 2 portion of their house. There is no dispute that though the notice at Exhibit-57 was placed on record by the plaintiff, in support of his case, no witness, either respondent no.4 or any other officer of the Gram Panchayat, such as Gramsewak, was examined to prove the contents of the notice. On the contrary, the Gram Panchayat, through respondent no.4, the Sarpanch, has filed written statement taking the stand contrary to the one reflected in the notice at Exhibit-57. Both the courts below have considered this aspect of the matter in proper perspective. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the courts below deserve no interference by this court in the Second Appeal. No substantial question of law is either involved or raised in the appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed. The civil application also stands disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)