1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No.512/2010 Manikrao s/o Laxmanrao Hedaoo Versus Baban s/o Istari Rokde _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri O.W. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, Shri A.M. Qazi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 15.02.2011. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 16th July, 2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.101/2007, by which the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit NO.14/2004 dated 30th June, 2007 came to be reversed. The appellant is the original plaintiff who has filed the suit for mandatory injunction to clear the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing his way to approach the public way. The Trial Court by judgment and order dated 30th June, 2007 partly decreed the suit. 2. The defendant being aggrieved by the said decree, filed Regular Civil Appeal No.101/2007. The 2 Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not specified the extent of the land in respect of which the defendant was interfering with his enjoyment, as also taking into consideration the fact that the defendant had removed the obstruction on the 20 feet wide road in front of the plaintiff’s iron gate, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court. 3. The findings of the Appellate Court as regards the ambiguity in respect of the suit property in respect of which the plaintiff had claimed injunction can be found in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the judgment and order of the Appellate Court. In my view, the said findings recorded by the Appellate Court are unexceptional and do not warrant any interference. The Second Appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant states that the 20 feet wide road in front of the appellant/ plaintiff’s property would continue to be left open and the respondent/defendant would not cause any obstruction on it. By recording the said statement, the Second Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE pma