[2025:RJ-JP:28222] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 745/2011 (1) The State of Rajasthan, through the Collector, Kota (Rajasthan). (2) The Deputy Collector, Kota (Raj.) (3) The Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Kota (Rajasthan). (4) The Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department (Revenue Sub Divisional-II), Kota (Rajasthan). ----Appellants Versus Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota (Raj.), Through the Managing Director. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Minakshi Jain, G.C For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 28/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Kota (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No.53/2007 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.1, (South), Kota (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No.158/2000, by which the trial Court decreed the respondent’s- plaintiff’s (for short ‘the plaintiff) suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:28222] (2 of 4) [CSA-745/2011] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants, in which he stated that recovery of Rs.1,99,399/- raised by the defendants against the plaintiff for pending water supply bills be declared as null and void. Defendants filed reply and stated that water connection of the plaintiff was not discontinued on account of pending bills. 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 izfroknh o"kZ 1991 ls oknh ds ikuh ds dusD’ku dh fcuk jhfMax fy, fcy tkjh dj jgk Fkk vkSj le; le; ij ikuh Hkh miyC/k ugha djok;k tk jgk Fkk\ 2- vk;k oknh us ikuh dh fnDdr ds dkj.k [kqn dk V;wcosy [kqnokdj izfroknh dze&4 dks ty dusD’ku fMldusDV djus gsrq fy[kk x;k\ 3- vk;k ty dusD’ku fMldusDV djus ds fy, fy[kus ds ckotwn izfroknh dze&4 }kjk vuko’;d :i ls oknh dks rax o ijs’kku dj euekuh jkf’k olwy djus dh xjt ls oknh dk ty laca/k foPNsn ugha fd;k x;k vkSj yxkrkj ty dusD’ku gsrq fcy tkjh djrk jgk ftl dkj.k oknh ij 1]99]399@& :i;s cdk;k fudkyh x;h ftldks pqdkus dk oknh nk;h ugha gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknh dze&2 }kjk tkjh ekax dk vkns’k i= dzekad 368 fnukad 21-5-94 oknh dks tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj fnukad 27-6-94 rd jkf’k tek u djkus ij tfj;s dqdhZ jkf’k dh olwyh gsrq fy[kk x;k gS tks i= voS/kkfud rFkk izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds f[kykQ gS tks izHkko’kwU; ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vk;k ;g okn lquus dk bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\** To prove his case, plaintiff got examined as PW-1-R.P. Nandwana. To prove their case, defendants got examined as DW1- Om Prakash Sharma. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendants for recovery of the bills raised by them [2025:RJ-JP:28222] (3 of 4) [CSA-745/2011] from 24.06.1991 to 28.02.1993. However, liberty was granted to the defendants to recover the amount of bills prior to 24.06.1991. The defendants preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007 and the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court as well as appellate court had committed error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Defendants in their evidence clearly mentioned that amount of the bills raised by them from 24.06.1991 to 28.02.1993 were pending. The water connection was not discontinued on account of pending bills. So, judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 07.09.2009 passed by the appellate court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the plaintiff in its evidence clearly mentioned that plaintiff had written a letter for discontinuance of the water connection on 24.06.1991. The said contention was also admitted by the defendants in their evidence. So, trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that after disconnection, they are not entitled to recover any amount from the plaintiff. So, appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:28222] (4 of 4) [CSA-745/2011] It is an admitted position that plaintiff had written a letter for discontinuance of the water connection on 24.06.1991. So, after disconnection, defendants are not entitled to raise any bill. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in restraining the defendants from recovery of the amount of the bills from 24.06.1991 to 28.02.1993. So, no substantial questions of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants 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 Jatin/47