Mangilal Regar vs Mahaveer Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4741 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 20/2021

Mangilal Regar S/o Rupa Regar, aged about 54 years, R/o Badnor Tehsil Badnor, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

----Appellant Versus Mahaveer Singh S/o Rugnath Singh Solanki, aged about 46 years, R/o Badnor, Tehsil Badnor, Disrict Bhilwara

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Saeena Bano with Mr. Sampat Prajapat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

March 29, 2022

The present civil second appeal has been preferred under

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant

-plaintiff against impugned Order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Civil

Appeal No. 07/2020 titled as "Mangilal Vs. Mahaveer Singh" vide

which the first appeal preferred by the appellant against the Order

dated 21.08.2020 passed by the Civil Judge, Asind, District

Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 25/2020 titled as "Mangilal Vs.

Mahaveer Singh" dismissing the application under Order XXXIX,

Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the appellant-

plaintiff, was dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission and

perused the record of the courts below.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

orders passed by the courts below are contrary to the material

(2 of 3) [CSA-20/2021]

available on record. He has further submitted that from the

documentary evidence available on record, it was clear that the

defendant (respondent herein) was adamant to encroach upon the

agricultural land belonging to the plaintiff by raising construction

of balcony over it, for which he was having no right.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-

defendant has submitted that the subject land was stated to be

agricultural land, therefore, the civil court did not have jurisdiction

to hear the suit. The defendant purchased plots in question from

the plaintiff, at that time, public way was mentioned in the

northern side of the said plots.

After perusal of the record, it reveals that the appellant-

plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction simpliciter on the ground

that the defendant was adamant to raise construction of balcony

on the agricultural land belonging to the plaintiff. During

pendency of the suit, the courts below have rejected the

application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. filed by the

plaintiff on the ground that dispute between the parties could be

decided after adducing evidence. A perusal of the orders

impugned shows that the courts below after appreciating the

entire material as also evidence on record have passed the

detailed orders observing that the defendant was raising

construction on the plots purchased by him and in case, he was

restrained from raising construction by temporary injunction, then

he would suffer irreparable loss. The plaintiff is having

opportunity of raising all his grounds at the time of final hearing of

the suit before the trial court.

(3 of 3) [CSA-20/2021]

In view of the above position, this Court is satisfied that no

substantial question of law is involved in the present second

appeal to be decided by this Court.

Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed at

admission stage.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

Inder/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)