[2025:RJ-JP:29905] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 269/2009 Agragami Vrahat Bahu Uddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Anta, through Ramdhan Sharma, aged about 45 Years, resident of Anta, District Baran (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Kallu Son of Shri Subhan Shah, aged 60 years, resident of Anta, District Baran. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 05/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 passed Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baran in Civil First Appeal No.41/2006, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Anta, Baran in Civil Suit No.16/2001, by which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for eviction and permanent injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction in which it was stated that the plaintiff was allotted a land measuring 100’x60’ by District Collector, Kota on 26.02.1957. In the year 1967, the respondent- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) encroached upon the land [2025:RJ-JP:29905] (2 of 4) [CSA-269/2009] measuring 37’x20’ in north east corner and put a wooden baggage there and in the year 1970-71, he constructed a shop from Bricks. Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in the year 1975, Assistant Collector, Baran vide order dated 25.08.1992 decreed the suit. Defendant filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota which was allowed vide order dated 16.10.1992. Against the said order, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 22.01.1998. Plaintiff filed a review petition. That was dismissed on 27.03.1999 with the observation that disputed land was not a revenue land. So, decision was given on the jurisdiction of the court concerned and civil court was held entitled to try the suit. Plaintiff came to know about the order of the review petition on 20.11.2001 and he got the copies on 21.11.2001 and civil suit was filed on 23.11.2001. Defendant filed written statement and stated that land was never allotted to the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff himself is encroacher upon the land. Board of Revenue had passed the order dated 22.01.1998. The present suit was filed beyond period of limitation. So, suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k lu 1967 esa izfroknh us oknh dh “wfe 37x20 oxZQhV ij uktk;t dCtk djds ydM+h dh cksjh j[k nh\ 2- vk;k ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks okn Jo.k djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 3- vk;k okn vof/k e/; is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS\ 4- vuqrks"k D;k gksxk\ [2025:RJ-JP:29905] (3 of 4) [CSA-269/2009] To prove its case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Ramdhan, PW2-Chottu Lal and PW3-Rajendra Kumar. Defendant got himself examined as DW1-Kallu Khan, DW2-Banshi Lal, DW3- Prabhu Lal and DW4-Shamshu Rahman. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff on the point of limitation and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that trial court had only decided the point of limitation. Trial court had to give the finding all the issues. So, judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 passed by the appellate court as well as judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005 passed by the trial court be set aside and the present appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the defendant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that revenue board dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff on 22.01.1998 but present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 23.11.2001 after a lapse of more than 3 [2025:RJ-JP:29905] (4 of 4) [CSA-269/2009] years. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff on account of limitation. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff 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 /33