( 1 ) S.A.No.199.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2004 Babarao S/o Sonaji Shelke .. Appellant Versus Bhimashankar S/o Shivramapa Sangekar and another .. Respondents ... Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar,Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Mr. P.K.Deshmukh,Advocate for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 Absent. ... CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT :- 1. Perused judgments of the Courts below. 2. Heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. The dispute in the suit (R.C.S. no.56 of 1997) filed before the Civil Judge Junior Division Jintur was mostly on facts. It was the grievance of the respondents-plaintiffs that the appellant-defendant had made encroachment on his agricultural field to the extent of 7 R. It was his case that in November, 1986 he got both the lands measured and proved the encroachment. In 1996 it was the appellant/defendant’s turn to get land measured through Taluka Inspector of Land Records. This was also done and it ( 2 ) S.A.No.199.04 was found again that the defendant/appellant had made encroachment on the land of respondents-plaintiffs to the extent of 7 R. The Courts below concurrently held that respondents-plaintiffs had proved their case about encroachment. No substantial question of law arise in this case, even though Mr. Bhavthankar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to contend that Taluka Inspector of Land Records before taking measurement of the land in the year 1986 at the request of respondents- plaintiffs did not issue mandatory notice to the appellant- defendant. He pointed out that this was admitted by the concerned witness. However, this lapse would fade into insignificance once the appellant-defendant admitted that in the year 1996 prior to filing of the suit he himself made an application for getting lands measured for the purpose of finding as to whether there was no incident of encroachment etc. It is obvious that the appellant-defendant was present when the lands were measured pursuant to his application in the year 1996. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, the appeal can not be admitted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1822 of 2004 for stay and the Civil Application No. 7427 of 2009 for measurement of lands, do not survive, and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] MTK ( 3 ) S.A.No.199.04