JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. FOR the reasons recorded in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record, no interference is warranted in the present appeal. The trial Court has held, as of fact, that the plaintiff did not examine any independent witness of the locality in support of his case nor did the Special Power of Attorney stepped into the witness box to support the plaintiff's case about encroachment on his property by the defendants. The plaintiff did not place on record site plan or photographs of the alleged digging work carried out by the defendants. The trial Court has also analyzed the evidence of Munni Lal, DW1, and eventually concluded that no cause of action was substantiated by the plaintiff about encroachment on his land. That finding of fact has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. 3. THE argument of the appellant proceeds on the basis of observations found in paragraph 16 of the decision of the First Appellate Court. Assuming that the appellant may be justified in contending that it was unnecessary for the First Appellate Court to refer to the fact that no demarcation was done or that the appellant had, in fact, under the garb of entering upon his land, encroached upon the land belonging to the respondentsdefendants bearing khasra No. 383. Even so, the fact remains that both the Courts below have concurrently found, as of fact, that the appellant has failed to establish the factum of encroachment by defendants on 12th August, 2006. 4. NO substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.