JUDGEMENT Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, senior counsel assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad for the plaintiff appellant and Sri Y.S. Bohra appearing for defendant respondent. 2. Original suit no. 1005 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff appellant in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr, for permanent injunction. The relief sought by the plaintiff appellant in the suit was thus : ^^v- ;g fd izfroknh ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vej dh tkjh djus dh d`ik djsa dh izfroknh xkVk la[;k 797 fLFkr xzke pWafn;kuk ijxuk vgkj rglhy L;kuk ftuk cqyUn'kgj esa okfnuh ds jkLrs x [k j ; ds fdlh Hkkx ij fuekZ.k djds vFkok xsV yxok dj okfnuh ds jkLrs esa :dkoV iSnk u djsa rFkk okfnuh dh ukyh tks xkVk la[;k 797 esa gh fLFkr gS esa ls ikuh cgus ls uk jksdsa o dwM+h Mkyus :dkoV iSnk u djsaA** 3. For appreciating the relief claimed by the appellant and the judgment of the court below, it appears necessary to have a glance on the plaint map which is as under : uD'kk utjh if'pe v c iqjkuh vkcknh 'kjhQqYyk nf{k.k n l mRrj edku Qjgn ubZ vkcknh 'kjhQqYyk xkVk la-798 edku vrj [kkWa izfroknh x [k M+ jkLrk xkVk la-797 & ukyh voS/k dCtk ; j d eq[; jkLrk iwjc 4. The suit was contested by the defendant respondents inter alia denying the boundaries of plot no. 798 aforesaid and claiming that the portion shown in the plaint map by letters Ra, Kha, Da, Ka is old abadi of the respondents. It was also denied that defendant respondents were making any constructions in the year 2002 which has given rise to any cause of action to the plaintiff appellant for filing the suit. It was also stated that they have not blocked the "Naali" shown by letters Da, Ka or destroyed its existence, and hence the plaintiff appellant has no right to claim relief against the defendant respondents in the garb of flowing water from the alleged "Naali" said to be in the land of defendant respondents. It was also denied that there was any RASTA or passage of Sri Sharifullah from plot no. 797. 5. It was also denied that there was any RASTA or passage of Sri Sharifullah from plot no. 797. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that it is apparent from the commissioner's report that there is a "GALI" in west side after A, B, old Abadi which has not been shown in the plaint map. 6. The trial court partly allowed the suit providing passage Ga, Kha, Ya, Ra, to the plaintiff appellant and dismissing the case in so far as question of Naali or flow of water through Naali Da, Ka, is concerned. 7. Findings of the trial court were not challenged by the defendant respondents but were challenged by the plaintiff appellant by means of civil appeal no. 19 of 2009. The Additional District Judge, court no. 5, Bulandshahr, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record including plaint map and survey commissioner's report, it appears that there are houses of other persons on the North and South side of the plots in dispute; that there is a GALI for opening of west side of some houses in the GALI where old Abadi of Sharifullah also situate; that a passage shown by letters Ga, Kha, Ya, Ra, has been provided by the court below to the plaintiff appellant from new Abadi of Sharifullah, Gata no. 798. But there is no Naali at Da, Ka. 9. Admittedly, the findings of passage has not been challenged by the defendant respondents but as regards Naali both the courts have recorded findings against the plaintiff appellant. Cause of action is said to have arisen in the year 2002 when the defendant respondents are said to have started raising their constructions allegedly by blocking flow of water from the Naali Da, Ka. 10. Submission of Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the plaintiff appellant is suffering irreparable loss as she has no other passage for draining of their water through Naali from their places. 11. The contention so advanced does not appeal to reason. Admittedly, there is a Gali on west side of the plot of plaintiff appellant, from which they can drain their water. 11. The contention so advanced does not appeal to reason. Admittedly, there is a Gali on west side of the plot of plaintiff appellant, from which they can drain their water. According to their own version, the plot in dispute they claim Naali or drainage at Da. Ka, belongs to Gaon Sabha and there is also a passage shown by letters Kha,Ga, Ya. Ra, in the plaint map have found by the courts below to be in the land of Gaon Sabha, hence the plaintiff appellant could have moved an application to the Gaon Sabha for providing them underground drainage from the passage or they could open drainage in Gali in the west side. It is impossible to conceive that plaintiff appellant has not constructed any drainage system since the year 2002 in respect of water used by them either from the passage Kha, Ga, Ya, Ra, in east side or Gali in the west side. 12. There does not appear to be any substantial question of law which requires consideration in this case and the Court does not intend to enter into concurrent findings of fact in this jurisdiction. In my considered view, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not require any interference as no substantial question of law is involved. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.