[2025:RJ-JP:30004] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 412/2010 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Collector, Bani Park, Jaipur 2. Chief Engineer Road-Ii, Public Works Department, Jaikab Road, Jaipur 3. Addl. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaikab Road, Jaipur 4. Executive Engineer, District Division, Public Works Department, Jaikab Road, Jaipur ----Appellants-Defendants Versus M/s Ajay Kumar Goyal, A Registered Partnership Firm Situated At, D-24, Chomu House, City Jaipur Through Gopi Chand Goyal S/o Gendi Lal Goyal, Power Of Attorney Holder ----Respondent-Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. M M Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Yashwardhan Tolani, Adv. & Mr. Pratap Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 05/08/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the first appellate Court) in civil regular appeal No. 24/2009 (28/2008, 169/2008), by which the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 26/1998 [2025:RJ-JP:30004] (2 of 3) [CSA-412/2010] (175/1992), whereby the trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff). Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent against appellants. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 and restrained the defendants to act in any manner pursuant to the letter dated 23.12.1991 issued by Additional Chief Engineer and Clause 2 and 3 of the Agreement. Being aggrieved thereby, defendants filed an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 dismissed the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the first appellate Court had no power to dismiss the appeal on merits when none was present on behalf of the defendants. So, the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the first appellate Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on merits because the first appellate Court had granted proper opportunity but none had appeared on behalf of defendants. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:30004] (3 of 3) [CSA-412/2010] It is an admitted position that while dismissing the appeal, none had appeared on behalf of the defendants. So, in my considered opinion, the first appellate Court had committed an error in dismissing the appeal on merits in the absence of the defendants. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by the first appellate deserves to be set aside. It is also made clear that the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal directed the defendants to initiate an inquiry against the erring officer. So, the order of the first appellate Court shall remain intact to the aforesaid extent and the defendants shall act against the erring officer. Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendants is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by the first appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 25.08.2025. However, the first appellate court is directed to decide the appeal, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. Record be sent back to the first appellate Court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/35