1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 280 of 2011 (Rajendra S. Shendge v. Pradeep Rawate) with S.A. No. 281 of 2011 (Rajendra S. Shendge v. Smt.Shobhabai S. Rawate & anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.S. Bhattad Adv. for appellants. Ms. Fouzia Haidari Advocate for Respondent. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24.08.2011. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit filed by the respondent did not indicate cause of action in clear particulars. He further argued that the cause of action could not be even elicited from any other piece of evidence including the evidence of plaintiff, and as a matter of fact, the evidence of plaintiff itself does not show anywhere as to when the encroachment was made by the appellant in order to find out whether the suit was within limitation, and that is the duty of the Court as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sadiq and Company reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1476 he submitted that the burden to prove the pleading 2 and proving cause of action was on the plaintiff and, in fact, as held, it was the duty of the Court to do so. It is not in dispute that both the courts have concurrently held that the appellants had made encroachment on the suit land belonging to respondent/ plaintiff. Further, the issue regarding limitation or cause of action, as contended by Mr.Bhattad, will have to be considered in the light of pleadings in the plaint, the evidence and the settled legal position that after all cause of action is bundle of facts which the court is duty bound to find out rather than mechanically dismissing the suit on that ground. Both the courts below have concurrently held that it was the case of the appellant that the land was measured in December 1999 by the Government Surveyor and it is after the measurement by the Government Surveyor the respondent/plaintiff came to know that there was encroachment made in the field in question by the appellant/defendant. According to him, the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff, namely the date of measurement or the report submitted thereafter was the relevant date in order to find out the limitation for the suit in question. I fully agree with the courts below that this was the only way to find out the knowledge of encroachment made by the appellant in the field of respondent. I do not find anything wrong with the respondent/ plaintiff in stating that he came to know about 3 the encroachment only after the Government Surveyor measured the field and, in my opinion, the bundle of facts carved out from the pleadings and documentary evidence clearly indicate the cause of action. In the factual scenario, I do not find that the decision of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, supra, has any application. Consequently, I do not find any merit in both these second appeals. No substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. Second Appeal Nos. 280 of 2011 and 281 of 2011 are dismissed. Judge /TA/