-1- GPN-J-2459-ARHCBN-3-04-1,00,000-ALA4* [Spl.-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.79e. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 122/2003 Subhash Chandrabhan Rajas - versus- Sau. Rekha Arun Pande ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2009. Heard Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for appellants and Shri S.G. Loney, Advocate for respondents. Plaintiffs filed suit in the year 1995 contending that 10 R., of their agricultural land is encroached by the present appellant / original defendant. They stated that this was found after measurement was conducted on 19.02.1994. The first question argued before me is that, unless entire survey number was measured, the report of measurer could not have been accepted. The other question is that the appellant/ defendant was not noticed and was not present at the time of measurement. However, perusal of the reversing judgment of Lower Appellate Court shows that in sale deed of present -2- appellant land purchased by her was shown to be 77 R., though infact her vendor and vendor's vendor had purchased the land only 67 R. Thus the Lower Appellate Court found that the defendant was in possession of 10 R., more and plaintiff was in possession of 10 R. less. In paragraph no.15 Lower Appellate Court found that defendant did not establish that any of earlier two owners were holding .77 R land. This finding and consideration in paragraph nos. 16 to 18 by it is not shown to be perverse at all. In view of these findings, which are not shown to be either erroneous or perverse, the questions as sought to be raised are totally irrelevant and do not fall for consideration. Second appeal is therefore, dismissed. No cost. At this stage, the learned counsel for appellant states that interim order which is operating today should be continued for a period of 6 weeks so as to enable the appellant to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. Hence, interim order to operate for further period of 6 weeks from today and shall cease to operate automatically after expiry of said period. JUDGE Rgd.