1 S.A.NO.510/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.510 OF 2009. 1. Bhimrao Annarao Kadam, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Sawargaon (Nasrat), Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. 2. Bapusaheb S/o Govinda Kadam, Age: 20 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o: Sawargaon (Nasrat), Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. ...Appellants. (Ori.Defendants No.1 & 2) VERSUS 1. Baliram S/o Shankar Kadam, Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o: Sawargaon (Nasrat), Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. 2. Sow.Padminibai W/o Balirao Kadam, Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o: Sawargaon (Nasrat), Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. 3. Bhanudas Dhondibai Paul, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o: At Phala, Tq.Palam, Dist.Parbhani. ...Respondents. (Nos.1 & 2-Ori.Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2. No.3-Ori.Defendant No.3.) ... Mr.Sanjay Kolhare, Advocate, for the appellants. ... 2 S.A.NO.510/2009. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 3rd August, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. This appeal is challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, holding that the appellants had made encroachment on the respondents land to the extent of 01 Hectare 09 R, before the suit was filed. 2. The Respondents/plaintiffs made complaint about encroachment to the Survey Office and got the lands measured through Cadestral Surveyor. The Cadestral Surveyor said in his deposition that he took measurement after giving notices to all the concerned parties including the appellants. The appellants were not present when the survey took place. But the Courts below held that the Surveyor had given due notice to the appellants and it was the appellants' duty to remain present for the survey work. It was not only possible but necessary for the appellants to apply to the Lower Court seeking an order for resurvey of the lands. In that event the lands would have been surveyed and measured once again in presence of the appellants. It could have proved helpful to the appellants. But the 3 S.A.NO.510/2009. appellant did not avail such opportunity. It seems the appellants were trying to take advantage of the fact that they were absent when the survey took place and that there was no acknowledgment of notice sent to them by the Surveyor. 3. The appeal does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law. The appeal does not survive and it deserves to be dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed. 4. In view of this, Civil Application No.7679/ 2009 does not survive. It stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.