JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has preferred his second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge, Chittorgarh in Civil Appeal No. 14/2008 whereby the learned appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapasan, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant has not proved his case with regard to easementary right. 2. Learned appellate Court has specifically held in para-11 of the judgment that even if it is presumed that the easementary right is established by the plaintiff-appellant with regard to light and air but upon facts he is not entitled for any decree in his favour because in the room in question there is one another window in existence from where he can easily get light and air. 3. The finding given by appellate Court is based upon evidence on record. Therefore, in my opinion, both the Courts below have not committed any error, which requires any interference by this Court in, this second appeal. Further, in this second appeal, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration before this Court. 4. In this second appeal, an application has been filed by the appellant under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order 39 Rule 7 of C.P.C. for appointment of Commissioner. 5. It is very strange that finding with regard to window in question is in favor of the appellant, learned appellate Court has adjudicated the matter on the ground that even if ventilator or window will be closed then also plaintiff-appellant will not suffer any irreparable loss whereas the respondent will be deprived to raise his construction upon which he is having title. In this view of the matter, no ground is made out for appointment of Commissioner at this belated stage. Hence while rejecting the said application, this second appeal is also dismissed.Application Rejected - Second Appeal Dismissed. *******