Rajendra Singh vs Champa Lal
2021 Latest Caselaw 7499 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 132/2020

Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Mandwara, Tehsil And District Sirohi (Rajasthan)

----Appellant Versus Champa Lal S/o Shri Nathmal Ji, R/o Ud, Tehsil And District Sirohi, At Present Baksava Colony, Sirohi (Rajasthan)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

17/03/2021

This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated

29.09.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Sirohi and judgment and

decree dated 07.02.2020 passed by District Judge, Sirohi,

whereby the suit filed by the respondent for permanent and

mandatory injunction has been partly decreed and the appeal filed

by the appellant has been rejected, respectively.

The suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed

by the plaintiff inter alia with the averments that there was a strip

land ([kkapk Hkwfe) situated alongside Plot No.51 & 52 in a triangle

form, which was being used by the plaintiff, however, the

defendant has started raising construction over the said strip land

and, therefore, he be restrained from raising construction and the

construction already made be demolished.

(2 of 3) [CSA-132/2020]

Though the defendant appeared, the written statement was

not filed which was closed, the plaintiff produced one witness and

the defendant closed his evidence without producing any witness.

After hearing the parties, the trial court framed one point for

determination and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was

entitled for injunction that the use of the strip land by the plaintiff

be not interfered with. However, the Court also came to the

conclusion that no construction was raised on the suit land and,

therefore, the relief of mandatory injunction was declined.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal.

The first appellate court, after hearing the parties and

noticing the case of the appellant, reiterated the finding recorded

by the trial court and consequently dismissed the first appeal as

well as the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both

the courts below fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the

plot in land was a strip land and in granting the injunction as

prayed.

It was submitted that the reliance placed on the agreement

(Ex.3), is distortion of the facts indicated therein and on that

count, the judgment impugned give rise to substantial question of

law.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant and have perused the judgments of the two

courts below as well as the record of both the courts.

Both the courts have concurrently found that the land in

question was strip land and was in use of the plaintiff. In the

appeal filed by the appellant, he himself indicated that the strip

land was lying vacant, which was being used by both the parties.

(3 of 3) [CSA-132/2020]

In those circumstances the grant of decree by the trial court and

dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court cannot be faulted.

The additional pleas sought to be raised in the present

appeal cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the appellant did

not file written statement and despite grant of opportunity did not

lead any evidence.

In view thereof, the judgments impugned do not give rise to

any substantial question of law. The appeal has no substance, the

same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 9-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)