1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.334 OF 2006 Shri Shripat Mukund Patil & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Shri Dagadu Haloji Thale & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Prasad Kulkarni i/by P.S.Dani, advs. For the Appellants. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 31st July , 2009 P.C. 1 Respondent No.1, Dagdu had filed regular civil suit no.93 of 1990 against the present appellant no.1 contending that without any right, the appellant/defendant was trying to put nail wire fencing covering area of land of the respondent no.1 Dagdu. He sought perpetual injunction and later on by making amendment, sought mandatory injunction to remove the fencing. While denying the contention of the respondent no.1, present appellants also filed regular civil suit no.129/90 contending that the present respondents were interfering in their possession over their land. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Dagdu. The trial Court also dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants observing that as per the evidence of the present appellants, 2 respondents/defendants had only taken objection at the time of measurement by the cadestral surveyor but there was no evidence about the encroachment or threat of encroachment or interference in possession of the present appellants on their land. Both the parties preferred appeals and both the appeals came to be dismissed in respect of claim of the present appellants. Appellate Court also found that there was no evidence of any encroachment or threat of encroachment or interference on the property of the present appellants. 2 After perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below and observations made therein, it appears that the present appellants had filed suit for perpetual injunction on non-existent cause. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. 3 In the result, second appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)