IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff had encroached on the defendant's land and failed to prove their case. The court also held that there was no substantial question of law in the appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Since the parties, facts, property, and issues involved in the present appeals are identical in nature, hence, at the request of learned advocate for the appellant, the matters are taken up for final consideration and Second Appeal No.322 of 2018 is considered as lead matter and the facts are taken from Second Appeal No.322 of 2018. Therefore, all the matters are heard together.

1.1 The present appeal i.e. Second Appeal No.322 of 2018 is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) by the present appellant – original plaintiff, by challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha in Regular Civil Appeal No.05 of 2010 as well as the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Amirgadh in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 1995, whereby the same were dismissed, which were for permanent injunction.

1.2 The present appeal i.e. Second Appeal No.321 of 2018 is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” by the present appellant – original plaintiff, by challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha in Regular Civil Appeal No.04 of 2010 as well as the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Amirgadh in Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 1995, whereby the same were dismissed, which were for permanent injunction.

2. It is relevant to note that the present Second Appeal is filed in the year 2018, but it was never proceeded, and is pending for admission since long.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present Regular Civil Appeal are that though learned Civil Judge answered the issue Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff that plaintiff is in possession and ownership property, of the suit however, learned Civil Judge answered the issue No. 3 against the plaintiff. Further, learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that defendants had not filed any reply of the amended plaint produced by the plaintiff vide Exh. 75. That decision of the learned Civil Judge with regard to Issue No. 3 is false and against the facts on record. That learned Civil Judge has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff on record. Further, learned Civil Judge has also not taken into consideration the Panchnam vide Exhs. 85 & 86. Further, trial Court has also not taken into consideration the written arguments submitted by the plaintiff vide Exh. 108. That trial Court has not considered the fact that defendants have. The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from appellate decrees not produced any oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is void and against the established principles of law and therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and to grant the relief as claimed in the R.C.S. No. 17 of 1995. Consequently, the same are dismissed by the Court and hence, being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

4. Heard Mr. Himansu M Padhya, the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. The suggested substantial question of law as framed in paragraph No.2 of the present appeal memo is as under:

(i) "Whether, the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction when defendant was never appear for producing any evidence or prove his written statement and there was no dispute with respect to the title or the possession of the suit property ?"

(ii) "Whether, the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit and appeal when on the date of filing of the suit, the original plaintiff was holding the title over the suit property and was in possession of the suit land?"

(iii) "Whether the court below are came t