Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffrespondent. He claimed that there was a passage of 7 ft. wide which was left joint between the parties. The defendant was trying to encroach upon the said passage. He claimed that the defendant had no such right, and therefore, injunction was sought against him. 3. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It was held that there was a passage but its width was only 4 feet. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed to that extent. 4. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the learned first Appellate court. The learned first Appellate Court reapparised the evidence. On such reappraisal, the learned first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant Bhim Sen had himself taken a stand that previously a joint passage of 7 feet width existed at the site but later on its width was reduced to 5 feet. 5. The defendant further maintained that one Brij Bhushan had encroached upon a strip of 1 feet, and therefore, passage at the spot was only 4 feet. However, the learned first Appellate Court held that the defendant had not led any evidence to show that the passage was reduced to 5 feet or that there was any encroachment made by brij Bhushan. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was decreed in toto. The defendant was restrained from raising any obstruction in 7feet wide passage. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.