IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2002 SHRI JOHN SEQUEIRA ....Appellants Versus SHRI DIOGO ROSARIO DIAS ....Respondents MR.A.J.KENKARE,MR.R.G.RAMANI FOR RESP. Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. Date:- 28th November, 2003 P.C.: Heard. I find no reason to interfere in this Se cond Appeal. The only question that was raised before the Court below is whether the respondents had access on the north ern side of the property Chalta No.42 an d whether the trial Court committed any illegality in appreciating the evidence on record and dismissing the suit. The appellate Court, on analysing the entire materials on record, has found that the evidence on record would clearly belie the appellant's contention that the Resp ondents had access on the southern side of Plot No.42 and touches Plot No.41 at its southern-most corner side and the ex istence of access on the western boundry cannot be accepted. That is essentially a finding on fact. To get over this pos ition, Mr.Usgaonkar contends that the appellate Court has wrongly discarded th e document (Exh.DW1/D-1) which is a publ ic document, contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in P.C. Purushothama Red diar v. S.Perumal reported in A.I.R. 197 2 S.C., 608. Accordingly it is argued th at substantial question of law as formul ated i.e. question of law as formulated i.e. question No.6. would arise for cons ideration of this Court, which reads thu s:- "6) Whether the Addl. Dist. Judge erred in holding that the letter dated 5.11.19 83 (Exhibit DW-1/D1) is not proved, when in fact it is a public document and on application of respondent No.1. This dec ision of the Addl. Dist. Judge is contra ry to the rule laid down by Supreme Cour t of India in AIR 1972 SC 608 - PS Purus hotam V.S. Perumal." However, from the finding as recorded by the appellate Court, in paragraph 12, i t is clear that the said document DW-1/D 1 has not been proved in evidence. Accor ding to Mr. Usgaonkar, since the said do cument has been exhibited by the Trial C ourt, it has been properly admitted in e vidence for which reason it cannot be di scarded. I find no substance in this argument bec ause, it is rightly argued on behalf of the respondents that production of this document was objected to by the responde nts during the trial, inasmuch as this d ocument was sought to be tendered only d uring the cross-examination of P.W.1/ori ginal plaintiff and that objection has b een recorded by the Trial Court. It is i n that backdrop the appeal court has fou nd that this document is not proved. Mr. Usgaonkar, however, contends that th e said document is a communication sent by the Authority to the owner of the plo t and, therefore, is a public document. This argument does not commend to me. Me rely because communication is sent by th e Authority, that by itself, cannot part ake the colour of a public document. Pub lic document has been defined in Section 74 of the Evidence Act and, the dispute d document which is pressed into service , obviously will not fall in any of the category specified therein. In that sens e, neither the argument of public docume nt nor the same has been properly admitt ed in evidence is available to the appel lant. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact r ecorded by the Appellate court. To my mi nd no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. Mr.Usgaonkar then contends that merely b ecause some passage/access is available, that by itself cannot create any right in favour of the respondents. That aspec t has been considered by the Court below and finding of fact has been returned a fter analysing the evidence on record th at the respondents had access on the nor thern side of Chalta No.42. In the circumstances,no case for interfe rence is made out. Hence rejected. In vi ew of this order, C.A. dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.