[2025:RJ-JP:41721] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 471/2024 Smt. Munni Devi W/o Late Sh. Harishankar Mishra, R/o P. No. 4, Teachers Colony, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Shri Rishal Singh, R/o P. No. 3 C, (Presently Residing At Plot No. 3 B, Teachers Colony, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Rishal Singh S/o Unknown, R/o P. No. 3 C, (Presently Residing At Plot No. 3 B, Teachers Colony, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 13/10/2025 1. On 08.10.2025, no one appeared on behalf of appellant to argue and press this second appeal on merits, hence, in the interest of justice, the second appeal was adjourned for today. Today in the first round, a proxy counsel appeared on behalf of appellant and prayed for pass over as also to seek instructions from the appellant, whether to press this second appeal on merits or not? But, when the matter has been taken up post-lunch, in second round, no one has appeared on behalf of appellant. 2. It appears from record that plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction wayback in the year 2002, seeking direction against his neighbor to remove the plants, implanted nearby to the boundary-wall, having an apprehension [2025:RJ-JP:41721] (2 of 3) [CSA-471/2024] that roots of the plants, may cause damage and create cracks in the boundary-wall. 3. It appears that no evidence was adduced from the side of plaintiff before the trial Court, and finally the suit was dismissed with cost of Rs.51,000/-, vide judgment dated 01.06.2018. 4. Thereagainst, plaintiff preferred first appeal. In the first appeal, plaintiff could not provide any justified reason, to allow him to adduce evidence, since the appellate Court has observed that ample opportunities to plaintiff, have already been given. However, the appellate Court, showing benevolence, reduced the cost from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.21,000/-, and dismissed the first appeal, vide judgment dated 23.08.2024. Whereagainst, present second appeal has been filed. 5. From the record, it appears that the second appeal is pending before the High Court since about one year and appellant did not pursue the same, nor has deposited the cost, such conduct of plaintiff does not allow her to avail further adjournment. Hence, the second appeal is hereby dismissed in default and for non- prosecution. 6. It is hereby observed that if appellant wishes to restore the second appeal, and to argue the same on merits, deposition of cost before this High Court, in compliance of order dated 23.08.2024, shall be a condition precedent and disbursement of cost shall be governed by the order(s) passed by this Court, in the appeal. 7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J [2025:RJ-JP:41721] (3 of 3) [CSA-471/2024] Sachin/S-73