HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 193/2015 1. Shivvo S/o Happu, 2. Gopal S/o Happu, 3. Pappu S/o Happu, 4. Dhoop Chand S/o Happu All R/o Goverdhan Gate, Kasba Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ---Plaintiffs-Appellants Versus 1.Pooran S/o Natthi (died), 1/1 Sheela W/o Pooran, 1/2 Laxman S/o Pooran, 1/3 Lalita S/o Pooran, 1/4. Kailaesh S/o Pooran, 2. Hariya S/o Natthi (died), 2/1 Vimla Devi W/o Hariya, 2/2 Doli D/o Hariya. 2/3. Rajni D/o Hariya. 2/4. Jyoti D/o Hariya. 2/5. Suman D/o Hariya (Since minor through her natural guardian mother Vimla Devi) 3. Raju S/o Das (died), 3.1 Sumitra W/o Raju, 3/2. Devilal S/o Raju, 3/3 Rinku D/o Raju, 3/4. Karan S/o Raju 3/5. Sagar S/o Raju, 3/6. Abhishek S/o Raju, 4. Pappu S/o Das. 5. Dhanna S/o Das, 6. Laxman S/o Pooran, 7. Lalita S/o Pooran, 8. Kailash S/o Pooran, 9. Shrichand S/o Nathi, All R/o Mohalla Naharganj, Kasba Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ---Defendants-Respondents (2 of 5) [CSA-193/2015] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Asha Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 07/07/2025 1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur (for short 'the Appellate Court') in regular civil appeal No.150/2004, whereby the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No. 56/2000, by which trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction and declaration. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that the plaintiffs are by caste Sweepers and they are doing the work of cleaning of the disputed land since their ancestors which is mentioned in the map annexed with the plaint as A to K but the defendants are interfering in the usage of that land, so defendants be restrained permanently to interfere in the use of land in dispute. 3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the said disputed (3 of 5) [CSA-193/2015] land belongs to them. Earlier, the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants in the year 1991 which was dismissed on 30.01.1991. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. So, the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- S1- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn djk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa fd okni= ds lkFk layXu uD’ks esa ekdZ ^^,&ch&lh&Mh&bZ&,Q&th&,p&vkbZ&ts&ds** of.kZr pj.k la[;k nks okni= esa ls oknhx.k dks muds LokfeRo dh o`Rr dks >kM+us rFkk mlls ykHk izkIr djus ls ugha jksdsa rFkk dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha djsa\ 2- vk;k oknksRrj ds iSjk la[;k vkB esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ ” 5. To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined Dhoopchand as PW-1, Gopal as PW-2 and Babu as PW-3. To prove their case, the defendants also got examined Hariya as DW-1, Khemsingh as DW- 2, Khubiram as DW-3, Babulal as DW-4 and Fussia as DW-5. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.08.2004, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 07.08.2004, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree 17.01.2015 while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2004 passed by the trial court. (4 of 5) [CSA-193/2015] 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence led by both the parties in the right perspective. There was no need to file any document(s). Oral evidence of the plaintiffs was not rebutted by the defendants. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that earlier, the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants in the year 1991 which was dismissed on 30.01.1991. So, no new ground arose of the plaintiffs to file the suit. The plaintiffs had not submitted any document(s) to prove their case. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, no substantial question of law is made out to admit the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the appeal be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 10. It is an admitted position that previously, the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants in the year 1991 which was dismissed on 30.01.1991. The plaintiffs had not exhibited any document regarding their oral evidence and not proved their case. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as the appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, no substantial (5 of 5) [CSA-193/2015] question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/