[2025:RJ-JP:19414] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 184/2014 Ashok Kumar Son of Late Shri Mani Ram, Resident of 212/29, Gulab Bedi, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt Malti Devi Wife of Late Shri Nand Kishore @ Nand Lal @ Nanda Yadav. 2. Shri Rajesh Son of Late Shri Nand Kishore @ Nand Lal @ Nanda Yadav. 3. Balvindra Son of Late Shri Nand Kishore @ Nand Lal @ Nanda Yadav All R/o Talab Ki Pal, Gulab Bedi, Ajmer ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Counsel with Mr. Naman Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 08/05/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No.23/12 (55/12), whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Ajmer City (East), Ajmer in Civil Suit No.43/10, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which it was stated that disputed plot measuring 300 sq. yards mentioned in para 1 of the plaint was [2025:RJ-JP:19414] (2 of 3) [CSA-184/2014] owned and possessed by Shri Nand Kishore S/o Shri Chandan Lal Yadav. He executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 30.12.2006. Shri Nand Kishore expired on 02.02.2010. So, on account of Will, plaintiff became owner of the disputed plot. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 wanted to sell this plot taking advantage to their relationship with the deceased Nand Kishore. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be allowed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that there is a difference between plot mentioned in the Will as well as description of the plot mentioned in the plaint. Disputed plot belongs to grand-father of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 Chandan Lal Yadav. Nand Kishore had not executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff. 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 oknh okn i= dh en la[;k 1 esa mYysf[kr Hkw[k.M dk okn i= esa mYysf[krkuqlkj olh;r fnukad 30-12-2006 dg :g ls ,d ek= Lokeh o dkfct gS\ 2- vk;k izfroknhx.k vfof/kd :i ls fookfnr Hkw[k.M dks okn i= dh en la[;k 9 ds vuqlkj vU;= cspku@gLrkUrfjr djus o oknh ds dCts esa vojks/k mRiUu djus gsrq vkenk gS\ 3- vk;k fookfnr lEink tokc nkos dh vkifRr vuqlkj iq’rSuh lEink gS] ;fn gka rks mDr dk okn ij D;k izHkko gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\ Plaintiff failed to adduce the evidence before the trial court. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:19414] (3 of 3) [CSA-184/2014] Plaintiff had preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit as also the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Trial court had to decide the suit on the basis of averments made in the plaint which were not specifically rebutted by the defendants. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiff also submits that one chance be given to the plaintiff to adduce the evidence. So, appeal filed by the plaintiff be admitted on the substantial questions of law mentioned in the appeal. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that despite the chance given by the trial court, plaintiff failed to adduce the evidence. So, trial court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff because plaintiff filed a present first appeal after a lapse of 10 months and he had not shown any bonafide cause for delay occurred in filing of the appeal. So, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is made out for admission of the appeal. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /76