: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.212 OF 2009 Amarsinh Shivajirao Patil ..Appellants & Anr. V/s. Fattesinh Ramchandra Patil ..Respondent ..... Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the appellants None for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellants instituted a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur being Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 1993 to seek an order of injunction against the respondent so as to see that the respondent does not obstruct and / or interfere with the possession of the appellants in regard to the suit property. The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2002 : 2 : against which an Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2005 was filed by the appellants in the District Court, Kolhapur and the said appeal came to be decided by the learned District Judge, Jaysingpur by his judgment and decree dated 27th August, 2008. He dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Bandiwadekar in support of the appeal. In the first place, there is concurrent finding as regards the possession of the appellants in regard to the suit property with reference to portion of Northern and Southern side. Both the Courts have arrived at conclusion that appellants have not been able to spell out that they are in possession of Southern portion as regards to which an injunction was sought. Both the courts had declined to accept the case of the appellants that the appellants are in possession of the Northern portion. If this is the position, then the Courts below rightly declined to grant a relief. 3. It is seen that the learned Judge who declined to grant an injunction while deciding the suit was impressed by the fact that the appellants could not : 3 : spell out the exact date or other particulars on which the obstruction was done by the respondent to the smooth enjoyment of the property. On that ground also the appellants have failed. In my view, no interference is required. No substantial question of law is placed before the Courts below. Hence, the appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)