Lal Singh And Ors vs Muncipality Shari Madhopur And O
2022 Latest Caselaw 7243 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.401/2002

Lal Singh And Ors
                                                                    ----Appellants
                                     Versus
Muncipality Shari Madhopur And Anr.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sageer Ahmed Qureshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

14/11/2022

1. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this civil second appeal

against dismissal of their civil suit for permanent injunction by the

first appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2002

passed in Civil Appeal No.32/98 by the Court of Additional District

Judge No.2, Sikar Camp Shrimadhopur whereas their civil suit

No.116/89 was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated

06.05.1998 and possession of plaintiff was protected.

2. Counsel for respondents submits that the possession of

appellants is on the government land and therefore, not liable to

be protected.

3. Having heard the counsel for both parties and on perusal of

the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2002, this Court finds that

the second appeal requires consideration and is admitted on

following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging themselves to be the owner in possession, the simplicitor suit for

(2 of 2) [CSA-401/2002]

permanent injunction is maintainable without asking for relief of declaration of ownership and the first appellate court committed illegality in reversing the decree of permanent injunction on this ground?

2. Whether the present suit for permanent injunction can be treated as barred by limitation and first appellate court committed illegality in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction on the ground of limitation, therefore, whether the impugned judgment is sustainable in law?

3. Whether the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property, deserves to be protected at least for not dispossessing them without following due process of law?

4. Since respondent-Nagar Palika has already appeared, no

need to issue notices.

5. Record has already been received.

6. This Court, vide order dated 18.09.2002, has already passed

interim order to maintain status quo of the property in dispute by

both parties. Thus, the interim order dated 18.09.2002 is made

absolute during the course of this second appeal.

7. Stay application stands disposed of accordingly.

8. Either of the parties are at liberty to move application for

early hearing of appeal.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/95

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)