1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No.40/2008. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 21st February, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.Sohoni, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration of ownership of area as shown in the plaint map. He had also sought a declaration that the decree obtained in Civil Suit No.40/02 was obtained by fraud by the defendant. 3. The Trial court as well as the appellate court found on fact that the summons was duly served on the defendant in that suit and yet the defendant had remained absent. The court found that the contention of the present appellant/ plaintiff that he was not served with summons was not correct. The 2 question whether defendant in C.S.No.40/92 was served or not is purely question of fact. There are two concurrent findings of courts below. There is no reason to interfere in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE pzc