Rakesh Goyal S/O Shri Baijnath ... vs Bhagwan Singh S/O Shri Bhoop Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4507 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 36/2021

Rakesh Goyal S/o Shri Baijnath Goyal, R/o Kherapati Mohalla,
Bharatpur,
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, R/o Village
       Kasoda, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2.     Jogendra Singh S/o Bhoop Singh Jat, R/o Village Kasoda,
       Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)
3.     Subedar Jugal Singh, S/o Munshi Lal Jat, R/o Village
       Kasoda, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

05/07/2022

1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal assailing the

judgment and decree dated 19.01.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.

23/2019 (CIS No.123/2019) by the Additional District Judge No.3,

Bharatpur, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and

decree dated 28.08.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.104/2019

(16/2013) (CIS No.83/2019) by the Senior Civil Judge (Rent

Tribunal), Bharatpur whereby and whereunder appellant-plaintiff's

suit for permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the impugned

judgments.

(2 of 2) [CSA-36/2021]

3. It appears from the record that the appellant-plaintiff has

instituted a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction in relation to

the agricultural lands in question before the Civil Court, claiming

his co-khatedari rights in the lands in question. The suit has been

dismissed with observation that in relation to agricultural lands,

the jurisdiction of Civil Court for the purpose of permanent

injunction cannot be invoked and further the plaintiff has remedy

before the revenue courts for claiming their khatedari rights or

partition or injunction, if claimed by plaintiff.

4. Having heard counsel for appellant and on perusal of record,

this Court does not find any material illegality or jurisdictional

error in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction as

not triable before the Civil Court.

5. It has already been observed by both courts that plaintiff has

alternative forum to ventilate his grievances, if any.

6. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-

plaintiff are essentially questions of fact. None of the question of

law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In order to

exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation

of substantial question of law is sine qua non.

7. In view of aforementioned discussions, this Court is of

opinion that this second appeal is not liable to be entertained and

deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

8. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)

disposed of.

9. There is no order as to costs.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN /9

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)