[2025:RJ-JP:32925] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 159/2012 1. Lacchi Ram S/o Shri Sattomal, R/o Rupangarh, Tehsil Kis- hangarh, District Ajmer Rajasthan. 2. Sattomal S/o Koharimal, R/o Rupangarh, Tehsil Kis- hangarh. 2/1. Lacchi Ram S/o Shri Sattomal, R/o Roopangarah, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. 2/2. Diwan Chand S/o Sh. Satto Mal, R/o Roopangarah, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. 2/3. Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Satto Mal, R/o Roopangarah, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. 2/4. Anita Devi W/o Sh. Rajkumar., R/o Roopangarah, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. 2/5. Jai S/o Sh. Rajkumar, R/o Roopangarah, Tehsil Kis- hangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. 2/6. Vijay S/o Late Sh. Rajkumar., R/o Roopangarah, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. 2/7. Bhagwani D/o Late Sh. Sattomal W/o Laxman Das, B/c Sindhi, R/o Chatai Mohalla, Ajmer. 2/8. Motiya D/o Late Shri Sattomal W/o Sh. Ramchandra , B/c Sindhi, R/o Bairagarh M.p. 2/9. Gopi D/o Late Shri Sattomal W/o Sh. Dhanraj, B/c Sindhi, R/o Daboi Gujrat. 3. Diwan S/o Satto Mal, B/c Sindhi, R/o Roopangargh, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj ---Defendants-Appellants Versus Deen Dayal S/o Mool Chand Rao, R/o Roopangarh, Tehsil Kis- hangarh, Distt. Ajmer Raj. ---Plaintiff-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Dr. P C Jain, Adv. with Mr. Roshan Vishwakarma, Adv. & Ms. Vinny Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present [2025:RJ-JP:32925] (2 of 4) [CSA-159/2012] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 21/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District-Ajmer (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil appeal No. 09/1997, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh in civil suit No. 163/1993 by which the plaintiff’s suit has been decreed and defendants restrained to block the drain, windows and spout situated on the northern side of the plaintiff’s plot. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants mentioning therein that towards the plaintiff’s house, a lane ad-measuring about 3 ft. wide is existing in which windows, spout and a drain are located on the northern side of the house. The defendants wanted to encroach upon it. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that there was no lane existing at the said place as the same has already been trespassed and illegal construction has been raised by the plaintiff himself. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- [2025:RJ-JP:32925] (3 of 4) [CSA-159/2012] “1- vk;k oknh dh LokfeRo o ekfy;u ds edku ds mRrj esa rhu QqV dh xyh fLFkr gS \ && oknh 2- vk;k oknh ds edku ds mRrj dh rjQ fLFkr ukyh cjlkrh] ukyh] taxyk o ckjh fLFkr gSa] tks fd oknh ds fy, gok o jks'kuh o cjlkrh ikuh o xansa ikuh ds fudkl dk lk/ku gS \ & oknh 3- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Deen Dayal, PW-2-Lalaram and PW-3-Ramnath and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined himself as DW-1-Lachiram, Dw-2-Shafi Mohammad and DW-3-Buddharam. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1997 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendant to block the drain, windows and spout situated on the northern side of the plaintiff’s plot. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 19.02.1997 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1997 passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff as well as dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants because by way of the evidence, the defendants clearly proved that the plaintiff had encroached on the said lane. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be allowed and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:32925] (4 of 4) [CSA-159/2012] After service of notice, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that there is a lane on the northern side of the plaintiff’s house and defendants wanted to encroach upon it and block the drain, windows and spout of the plaintiff. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court vide judgment dated 19.02.1997 has not committed any error in decreeing the suit 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-Tahir/47