HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 219/2010 Netram S/o Kare Singh, Au Darwaja, Kasba Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur ----Appellant Versus 1. Hari Singh S/o Kundan, Au Darwaja, Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur 2. Brijmohan S/o Kundan, Au Darwaja, Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur 3. Bhola S/o Kundan, Au Darwaja, Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 06/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur, Head Quarter Deeg, (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No.11/10, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Deeg in civil suit No.55/03 by which the plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that a lane mentioned (2 of 4) [CSA-219/2010] in Para-2 of the plaint is in possession and ownership of the plaintiff and he has been using the disputed lane for a long time. The disputed lane was left by the plaintiff for to and fro towards his Nohara and house. The defendants wanted to raise illegal construction over the disputed lane, although they have no right. Furthermore, the defendants threatened the plaintiff and started constructing over the disputed lane. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the lane in question is not in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. The disputed lane is being used by the defendants on which their drainage and doors are located. There is a Chabutara which is being used by them since their ancestors’ time. Nagar Palika incorporated a provision to construct a laterin for the use of poor persons and to construct a Tank. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k okn&i= ds en la0 2 esa of.kZr ,oa layXu uD’ks esa o jax lq[kZ ekdZ v] c] l] n xyh oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh fookfnr xyh esa etkger enk[kyr u djus ,oa ekdZ d] [k] x] ?k] ij ySVjhu fuekZ.k u djus ds fy, izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djok ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknhx.k gtkZ [kkl 5000@& :0 oknh ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\ ” (3 of 4) [CSA-219/2010] To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Netram, PW-2 Yogendra, PW-3 Prahlad and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Harisingh, DW-2 Sunil Kumar and DW-3 Durjan. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff and his witnesses had proved that the disputed lane is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff but the defendants want to raise construction over it. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. (4 of 4) [CSA-219/2010] The trial court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff clearly mentioned that the plaintiff’s witness PW-3 Prahlad admitted during cross-examination that laterin and tanks were constructed by the Nagar Palika over the disputed lane and the plaintiff had not constructed them. So, the trial court as well as the first appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, 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 Gourav/72