1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1025 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1311 OF 2007 Shivaji Keru Metkute (Jadhav) & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Shri Balaso Devappa Udgave & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure, adv. For the Appellants. Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th September , 2009 P.C. 1 This is the second appeal filed by the original defendants. According to the plaintiffs, he is the owner of gat no.1526 covering 3 H 68 acres land. The land of the defendants bearing gat no.1507 is to the Eastern side. According to the plaintiffs, defendants had encroached upon 42 acres land from the land gat no.1526. Area of encroachment was got ascertained by him by measurement of land privately through retired cadestral surveyor. On the basis that, he filed suit for possession. The trial Court appointed D.I.L.R. to measure the land and the Court Commissioner also confirmed that there was encroachment on 42 acres 2 of land of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit came to be decreed. Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. 2 In the Second Appeal, defendant/appellant has filed civil application no.1025 of 2009 to produce certain documents as additional evidence . These documents were never produced before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out from consolidation record that gat no.1510 belongs to the brother of the plaintiffs. As per that record, 31 acres land out of survey no.73A belonging to the plaintiffs was taken out and was merged in survey no.73C admeasuring 3H 65 acres. Both these lands after consolidation were given gat number or block no.1510. Area of the land was shown 3H 96R plus 3 R. He also sought to produce documents to show that about 8 gunthas land out of survey no.73A of the plaintiffs was acquired by the Government. According to him, if these lands are deducted from the area of 73A, land in possession of the plaintiff could not be 3H 68R. It is material to note that he has not produced any record about consolidation of gat no.1526. Even if it is presumed that some land out of original survey no.73A was taken out and merged with the land of brother of the plaintiffs and it became gat or block no.1510, there is no record to show as to how the gat no.1526 standing in the name of the 3 plaintiffs was constituted at the time of consolidation. The plaintiff filed suit on the basis of area of the gat numbers as shown in the record and the measurements of the lands were taken on the basis of that. Defendants also did not get his own land measured to show that he is in possession of only 8 acres 33 gunthas of land and not more than that. In view of these circumstances, it is clear that even now the defendants/appellants are not coming with complete record to show that the plaintiffs are not owner of 3H 68R as shown in gat no.1526. Therefore, in my considered opinion, record which is sought to be produced now in Civil Application No.1025 of 2009 is only misleading and does not help the Court in coming to conclusion that the plaintiffs are not owner of gat no.3H 68R in land gat no.1526. Therefore, I do not deem it proper to allow production of additional documentary evidence in the second appeal. 3 There is concurrent finding of the fact of both the Courts below based on the record of the gat numbers as well as the measurement of the land twice. There is nothing to show that measurement was not correct. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application No.1025 of 2009 also stands dismissed. 4 4 As the appeal itself is disposed off, Civil Application No. 1311 of 2007 for stay does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)