Rajasthan High Court
Brij Lal S/O Shri Narayan Das vs Assistant Engineer on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 435/2018
Brij Lal S/o Shri Narayan Das, R/o Kalwa Mod, Tehsil Buhana,
District-Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Buhana
Jhunjhunu
2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Khetri,
District Jhunjhunu
3. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department,
Jhunjhunu
4. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Buhana
5. Shiv Kumar S/o Pala Ram,
6. Ramotar S/o Palaram,
Both Residents Of Kalwa Mod, Buhana, Tehsil Buhana,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
7. Krishan Kumar Agarwal S/o Premcjhand Agarwal, R/o-
Dhakamandi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.0
----Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gourav Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
14/11/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by
the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 passed in Civil
Regular Appeal No.08/2017 by the Court of Additional District
Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, affirming the judgment and
(2 of 3) [CSA-435/2018]
decree dated 03.02.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.54/2013 by the
Court of Civil Judge, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, whereby and
whereunder civil suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction
filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed on merits.
2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the impugned
judgments.
3. It appears from record that plaintiff instituted the present
suit for removal of an electric poll, alleging inter alia that private
defendants No.6 and 7 have got installed that electric poll in front
of the plaintiff's house on the government land which is virtually
an encroachment by defendants. Plaintiff claimed that one plot in
Village Buhana was allotted by the Gram Panchayat in the year
1975 and in front of his plot, defendants No.5 to 7 have made
some encroachment, but plaintiff neither produced his patta nor
adduced any evidence to show the measurement of his plot. In
absence of any cogent and substantive evidence of plaintiff, his
case of making any encroachment by defendants, has rightly
disbelieved by the courts below.
4. As far as installation of an electric poll is concerned, both
courts below have recorded a fact finding that the electric poll is
installed on the government land, laying between the plaintiff's
plot and the road. It has been observed that plaintiff admits
construction of road, therefore, his case for seeking mandatory
injunction for removal of the electric poll has also rightly been
declined. It has also come on record that plaintiff sought relief
against the Public Works Department and impleaded concerned
government officers of Public Works Department and Ajmer Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd. as defendants No.1 to 4, but no statutory notice
under Section 80 CPC was given prior to institution of the suit.
(3 of 3) [CSA-435/2018]
5. In overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds that both
courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional
error in dismissing the plaintiff's suit on merits.
6. The fact findings recorded by both courts below do not give
rise to any substantial question of law as same are based on
evidence on record and do not suffer from any perversity, nor
based on misreasing/non-reading of evidence, nor are against the
settled proposition of law.
7. In case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.
Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that where two courts have reached
a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material
documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither
can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably
could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not
required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
8. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts
below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned
judgments, there is no force in the second appeal as no
substantial question of law arises in the matter, hence the same is
hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
9. Stay application and any other pending application, if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/88
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
