1 Spb/- IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 962 OF 2006 IN Second Appeal No. 580/2006 Sadu Dadu Gaikwad .. Appellant. (Org.Def.no.7) V/s. 1. Christian Church Rukadi .. Respondents. Public Trust and others. --- None for the Appellant. --- CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATED: 09th APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. None for the Appellant. The matter was kept back. Yet for the second time, none has appeared. Dismissed. (V.R.Kingaonkar,J) 2. In in the second session, Mr. A.P.Kulkarni, 2 Advocate, i/by A.M. Kulkarni appeared for the Appellant and Mr. D.V.Sutar, Advocate, appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1A to 1E. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. The plaintiffs suit for injunction simpliciter came to be dismissed. Admittedly there is user of passage by the defendants in respect of CTS No. 2169 and they are residing in the premises, nearing CTS No. 2168. The first appellate court, however, reversed the judgment and decreed the suit. The first appellate court came to the conclusion that there is no dispute about ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the disputed property, namely, city survey no. 2170. The first appellate court observed that the property shown as C.T.S.No. 2169 is an open space. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents restricted their claim only in respect of CTS No. 2170 and will not cause any disturbance in the passage of the appellant in respect of CTS No. 2169. In view of this statement, the findings of fact need not be gone into by this 3 court. 4. The second appeal is outside the scope of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the Appeal itself, nothing survives in the Civil Application No. 962/2006 and the same is also disposed of as such. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) .....