JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot, in dispute, wherein the defendant-U.I.T., in its written statement pleaded that the plot, in dispute, has been allotted to the Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, who is in actual possession of the plot, in dispute. Learned Lower Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent being aggrieved with the same, the first appeal was preferred and the learned Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent and directed that the U.I.T. will not make any interference in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent, but the said directions will not be binding on Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan and its rights will not be affected adversely as Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan has not been impleaded as party in the suit. Being aggrieved with the same, the U.I.T., has preferred this second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants-U.I.T., does not dispute that the land, in dispute, is not in their possession, but the same was allotted to the Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, therefore, as per admitted facts, dispute appears to be in between the plaintiff Gordhan Bhabhani and Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants thereafter i contended that the U.I.T., being statutory body has a statutory right to take action against any plot holder, in case they raised constructions contrary to the provisions of the statutory Act. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent does not dispute this aspect of the matter and contended that in case any constructions contrary to the provisions of the Act is made, then the U.I.T., or the Municipality, whoever has a legal right to take legal action, is at liberty to do the same. 5. The finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court relates to the questions of fact as it was a suit for permanent injunction only. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant- appellants in the findings of both the Courts below. 6. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 7. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself no order as to costs.Second appeal dismissed. *******