[2025:RJ-JP:28220] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 12/2012 Nagar Palika, Gangapur City Through Its Executive Officer ----Appellant Versus Ramvilas S/o Onkar Village Chak Chaba (Bad), Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Ms. Chanchal Mr. Uttkarsh Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 28/07/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 07/2009 whereby the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapurcity in civil suit No.13/2006 by which the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.36,805/-. It was mentioned that in an auction, the defendant was granted the land admeasuring 8X36 sq. ft. in a sum of Rs.50,000/- for installing sugarcane machine [2025:RJ-JP:28220] (2 of 4) [CSA-12/2012] from 01.04.2006 to 31.06.2006 but a complaint was filed against the defendant that he had encroached upon the excess land, so, Junior Engineer of the plaintiff-Municipal Council inspected the site on 27.06.2006 and after measurement it was found that defendant was using the land admeasuring 500 sq. ft. Whereas he was given only 288 sq. ft. land in the auction. So, notice was given to the defendant for depositing an amount of Rs.36,805/- for using the excess land of the Municipal council i.e. 212 ft. but he had not deposited the same. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that he had not encroached the excess land measuring 212 sq. ft., so, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k fd izfroknh us usg: ikdZ xaxkiqj flVh ds ikl mls uhykeh esa Lohd`r tehu 8X36=288 oxZ QqV ds LFkku ij 11-6X43-6 QqV=500 oxZ QqV vFkkZr 212 oxZ QqV vf/kd Hkwfe ij dCtk dj j[kk Fkk ftlds mi;ksx dh jkf’k 36]805@& #i;s oknh izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh 2- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Dileep Sharma, PW-2 Narendra Kumar Gupta, PW-3- Jitendra Kumar Sharma. The defendant also got examined DW-1- Ramvilas Mali and DW-2 Rahul. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held it entitled to recover Rs.36,805/- from the defendant. [2025:RJ-JP:28220] (3 of 4) [CSA-12/2012] Defendant challenged the said judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.11.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the appellate court has committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the defendant was using the excess land of 212 sq. ft., so, trial court rightly held the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs.36,805/- from the defendant. So, the judgment passed by the appellate court be set aside and the present appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove encroachment on 212 sq. ft land. He further submits that the plaintiff’s witnesses had not adduced any cogent evidence with regard to the encroachment. So, the first appellate Court has not committed any error in allowing the appeal filed by the defendant. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendant. While allowing the appeal, the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence that defendant had encroached upon 212 sq. ft. land more than the land auctioned to him and he also failed to apprise the Court regarding penalty levelled by him. So, in my considered opinion, [2025:RJ-JP:28220] (4 of 4) [CSA-12/2012] no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Avinash/50