IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 106 (SS) of 2011 Naseem Ahmad …Appellant/Plaintiff Versus Nagar Palika Parishad, Pauri …Respondent/Defendant Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate present for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the plaintiff/appellant. 2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for injunction being Suit No. 5 of 1995 in which the following issues were framed:- i. Whether plaintiff is entitled of permanent injunction as prayed? ii. Relief? 3. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff preferred a civil appeal being Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004, which was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant states that there is no finding that there has been an encroachment committed by the plaintiff. This issue never comes up before the Court nor there is such application. 5. At this stage in second appeal this cannot be a substantial question of law on which this appeal can be admitted. The second appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. It is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 18.11.2011 VKG