JUDGEMENT
Alok Sharma, J. -
(1.)FOR the reasons stated in the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the second appeal is condoned. On the request of the counsel for the plaintiff -appellant (hereinafter 'the plaintiff), the matter is taken up for admission.
(2.)THIS second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved at the judgment decree dt. 05.01.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the first appellate Court'), whereby the learned first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dt. 10.04.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr., Div.) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction filed against the defendants -respondents (hereinafter 'the defendants').
I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the judgment and decree of the trial Court as also the first appellate Court.
(3.)THE learned Courts below have concurrently come to a finding of fact that the wall constructed by the plaintiff towards the west of his house was not within his lawfully acquired plot, but an encroachment over a Public Chowk (square) utilized inter alia by the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and also by the public at large. The Courts below have further found that aside of the encroachment over the Public Chowk (square) by the plaintiff, the suit for permanent injunction as laid against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 alleging collusion between them and defendant No. 3, Gram Panchayat Khawaraniji, in conspiring to break down the wall constructed by the plaintiff towards the west of his house was not maintainable in view of the embargo of Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994').
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.