IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2008 SHRI YESHWANT KHEDEKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI SHRIPAD NANU GAUDE AND 20 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 24th April, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. P. Talaulikar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant was the Plaintiff in R.C.S. No.105/2001/D. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff claiming damages of Rs.40,000/- on the allegation that on 21-4-2001 the Defendants demolished the rear portion of the shop and committed theft of certain articles. The suit was partly decreed in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, but in appeal the said suit came to be dismissed. It appears that as regards the same incident the Plaintiff had filed a criminal case in which the Plaintiff had implicated only Defendant Nos.4, 5, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 21 under Sections 143 and 427 r/w 149 I.P.C. but the said Defendants as accused came to be acquitted by Judgment dated 10-5-2002. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant submits that the standard for appreciating evidence in a criminal case was beyond reasonable doubt while in the civil suit it was by preponderance of probabilities and therefore the acquittal of the said case could not come in the case of the dismissal of the civil suit. There can be no quarrel with the submission made by learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant. However, it is to be noted that the learned first appellate Court has meticulously examined the evidence produced on behalf of the Plaintiff and has found the same to be unreliable. It appears that none of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the Plaintiff were eye witnesses to the incident and therefore the learned first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that what was important for the Plaintiff was to prove that the Defendants were involved in the incident and which the Plaintiff has failed to prove. It was certainly not the case of the Plaintiff that he was present at the time of the incident when about 50 to 60 persons are alleged to have participated in the incident of demolition. In my view, the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate Court cannot be faulted. There are no substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.