[2025:RJ-JP:26042] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 261/2015 1. Hanuman Prasad S/o Bhudha Ram, Jagir Bandikui Ghodarok, Teh. Baswa, Distt. Dausa 2. Ramesh Chand S/o Tolaram, Baswa Road, Malipura Bandikui, Teh. Baswa, Distt. Dausa ----Appellants Versus 1. Rameshwar Prasad S/o Ramdhan, Jhalani Restaurant, Near Pwd Tiraha, Bandikui 2. Rajesh S/o Rameshwar Prasad, Jhalani Restaurant, Near Pwd Tiraha, Bandikui 3. Executing Officer, President Nagar Palika Mandal, Bandikui ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.L. Sharma For Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 For respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Sharma Mr. Harshit Parashar and Ms. Gunjan Chawla for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 14/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui District Dausa (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 44/2013 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bandikui in civil suit [2025:RJ-JP:26042] (2 of 4) [CSA-261/2015] No. 44/08 by which the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for eviction, permanent and mandatory injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) for eviction, permanent and mandatory injunction. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknhx.k ds firk cqtqxkZu us layXu uD’ks esa fn[kk, LFkku rksykjke] jkes’kpan dh iq[rk nqdku cq)kjke] guqeku izlkn dh iq[rk nqdku ds if’peh vksj 18x10 QqV Hkwfe dks utjkus ij uxjikfydk] ckanhdqbZ ls izkIr dj utjkuk jkf’k 250@& :i;s fnukad 1-1-68 dks jlhn la[;k 18@1707 ds tfj;s tek djk dj utjkuk’kqnk Hkwfe ij dCtk izkIr dj vius lkeku ck.k] ckal] cYyh vkfn Mkyrs jgs gSa\ 2- vk;k izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 o 2 dh iq[rk nqdku ds mRrjh o iwohZ vksj nks QqV dh xyh NksM+ dj Hkwfe ds bZ-,Q-th-,p- dks oknhx.k us uxjikfydk] ckanhdqbZ ls izkIr dh FkhA izfroknhx.k us lh-Mh-bZ-,Q- xyh dks jksdrs gq, ,-ch-lh-Mh- LFkku ij Hkwry ij fuekZ.k djuk 'kq: dj fn;k o iw.kZ dj fy;k\ 3- vk;k xr djhc 24&25 lky ls izfroknhx.k mDr Hkwfe ij iq[rk fuekZ.k dj vius gyokbZfxjh ds dke O;olk; esa dke ys jgs gSa ftldh oknhx.k dks 'kq: ls tkudkjh gS\ 4- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij iq[rk fuekZ.k izfroknhx.k us djhc 24&25 lky iwoZ uxjikfydk ckanhdqbZ dks fof/kor uD’kk ikl djok dj utjkuk o fodkl 'kqYd tek djk dj Lo;a oknhx.k dh ekStwnxh esa djk;k\ 5- vk;k uxjikfydk ckanhdqbZ ds fo#) okn fof/kor uksfVl ugha fn, tkus ds dkj.k vLohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:26042] (3 of 4) [CSA-261/2015] 6- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe dk ewY; vkB yk[k :i;s gSA vr% okn U;k;ky; ds vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k vLohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 7-vk;k oknhx.k us okn ewY;kadu lgh ugha crk dj de U;k; 'kqYd ij okn izLrqr fd;k gSA oknhx.k us vkns’kkRed fu"ks/kkKk ds fy, dksbZ U;k; 'kqYd Hkh ugha fn;k gSA vr% okn [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 8- vk;k okn oknhx.k fof/kd rkSj ij pyus ds ;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 9- vuqrks"k\ After several opportunities, plaintiffs had not adduced their evidence and the trial Court closed the plaintiffs’ evidence and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that due to unavoidable reasons, plaintiffs could not appear before the trial Court and their advocate appearing before the trial Court had not informed the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs filed the first appeal after a lapse of more than two years. Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. So, the judgment dated 11.02.2015 passed by the first appellate Court is required to be set aside, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the first appellate court for fresh adjudication on merit. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the plaintiffs and [2025:RJ-JP:26042] (4 of 4) [CSA-261/2015] submitted that plaintiffs had not shown any bona fide cause for filing the appeal after a lapse of more than two years. So, the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on ground of delay. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal. So, the appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs were not present before the trial Court, so the trial Court closed the plaintiffs’ evidence on 12.07.2011 and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, nothing was mentioned as to how and through whom the plaintiffs came to know about the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011 on 19.12.2013. No plausible cause was shown by the plaintiffs for such an inordinate delay, whereas they were required to explain each and everyday delay with cogent reasons. So, in my considered opinion, learned first appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of limitation. So, no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal. The civil second appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/76