1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 517/2002 (Pushkar Pradeep Nimkar Vs. Dnyaneshwar Namdeo Burghate) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 1 st AUGUST, 2008. Heard Shri Kilor for the appellant. In the instant case, a suit was filed by the respondent/original plaintiff for a declaration and permanent injunction restraining the present appellant from damaging the crops of the plaintiff, was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff/ respondent against the judgment passed by the trial Court was also dismissed. By this second appeal, the appellant has challenged the observations of the first appellate Court to the effect that the defendant/ present appellant had erected a big wall at the bund, which is abutting to Government road and practically in the Government land it might be a sort of encroachment on the Government land. It is rightly pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the observations made by the first appellate Court were erroneous and were also not 2 supported by the pleadings on record as it was nobody's case that the defendant/present appellant had encroached on the Government land. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Courts and also the pleadings of the parties. It appears that it was not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached on the Government land. The first appellate Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had practically encroached upon the Government land. Though it is prima facie apparent that the observations are not based on the pleading and the case of the parties, this Court would not be in a position to interfere with the observations/findings in a second appeal in view of the settled position of law that the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide an appeal against mere observations. Hence, by respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R . 1974 Supreme Court page 1126 , it is necessary to dismiss the present appeal. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP