( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2006 Tatyarao s/o. Satwaji Jadhav & ors. .. Appellants Versus Sunaji s/o. Sakharam Jadhav and anr. .. Respondents Shri D.R. Shelke, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri D.R.Shelke for the appellants. None present for the respondents. This is an appeal preferred by the original defendants against whom decree for delivery of possession of 41 R land was passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmath, in Regular Civil Suit No. 96 of 1994, decided on 31.03.2001, which is further confirmed in Appeal by the learned II Additional District Judge, Parbhani in ( 2 ) Regular Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2001 decided on 27.06.2003. It is no more disputed that the plaintiffs are owner of Gat No.312 and land of defendants bearing Gat No. 309 is on North and West side of the plaintiffs. It is case of the plaintiffs that the defendants encroached to the extent of 41R land. In order to prove the encroachment, there is evidence of Cadastral Surveyor. It is argued before me that only the land of the plaintiffs and defendants were measured and other adjoining lands were not measured. The lands of the plaintiffs and defendants own whole block numbers and it is not that there were other pot hissas of same Gat numbers which required to be measured. It is also said that the measurements were behind back of the defendants, but it is not case that the defendants were not aware of the date of the measurement. It appears that they remained absent inspite of knowledge of date of measurement of which they cannot take advantage. It is submitted by defendants that during consolidation scheme the lands are measured and 38 R land was mutated in the name of plaintiff Gunaji, but there was no evidence regarding the same. ( 3 ) 2. There are concurrent findings of facts. No infirmity is shown, which requires reconsideration by this Court in the second appeal. In absence of any substantial question of law or perversity in my opinion, this appeal cannot be admitted. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUL09/sa300.06