1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2007 Renukadas S/o Chandidasrao Pande .. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri M. K. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 4 served. The appeal dismissed against the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : . The appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant assails the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts, wherein it has been held that the plaintiff has not been in a position to prove that the excavation of said rubbles were from his soil. The Courts have also observed that there is variance between the contentions raised in the notice U/Sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and in the pleadings. The plaintiff 2 relied on the panchanama. The said panchanama is also not produced on record. An adverse inference is required to be drawn for non production of panchanama. 2. There are concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below. No error in the judgment of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/August 10