1. - Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant.

2. By this second appeal, the plaintiff appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2012 passed by Additional District judge No. 3, Ajmer in Civil Regular Appeal No. 150/2011 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2007 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer City (East), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 92/2004 whereby the civil suit of the plaintiff appellant for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants, has been dismissed.

3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a civil suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants with the averments that he and his brother Umesh are the owner of property No. 684/30 situated at Jhalkari Nagar, Ajmer and a strip of land measuring 8 x 25 feet was sold by the Municipal Board, Ajmer on 21.7.1990 and subsequently, granted permission for construction on the said strip of land. When the plaintiff was making construction on the said strip of land on account of political ill-will some persons with the connivance of the officials of the Municipal Board obstructed construction. Therefore, he sought permanent injunction against the officials of the Municipal Board.

4. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed written statement showing ignorance regarding factum of connivance with the further averment that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff. An objection was taken that in absence of notice under Section 80 C.P.C., civil suit against them is not maintainable.

5. The defendant No. 2 has filed written statement admitting the fact of sale of strip of land 8 x 25 feet and further submitted that the length of the house of plaintiff is 70 feet and if the width of the strip of land (8 feet) is added then the total length of house the plaintiff comes to 78 feet out of which he has raised construction over 75' 3" and now only 2' 9" land of the plaintiff remains on which he can raise construction but he is intended to raise construction over 5' 3" Government land for which no permission has been granted. The said fact has been concealed by him, therefore, he has not approached the Court with clean hands.

6. . On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following five issues were framed.

1- vk;k izfroknhx.k lEifRr la[;k 684@30 xkSjk fudqat >ydkjh uxj] uxjk vtesj ds mRrjh fn'kk esa Lohd`r uD'ks fnukad 1-7-2004 o 6-7-2004 ds vuqlkj oknh dks fuekZ.k dk;Z djus esa O;o/kku voS/k :i ls djus ij vkeknk gSA ftlds fo:) oknh okafNr LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k /kkjk 80 nh-iz-la- ds uksfVl ds vHkko esa oknh dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 3 ds dqla;kstu ds dkj.k okn i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknh i= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa of.kZrkuqlkj nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\

7. In evidence, the plaintiff produced Narend'ra Kumar PW-1 and further produced some documents which have been marked as Exs.1 to 9. Defendant No. 2 produced DW-1 Hari Chandani in evidence but not produced any documentary evidence.

8. The trial Court after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence decided issue No. I against the plaintiff and decided issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff but considering the finding on issue No. 1, vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.2007 while dismissing the suit refused to grant injunction as sought for by the plaintiff.

9. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff appellant has filed appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court considered the entire evidence and judgment of the trial Court. In Para No. 10 of the judgment of the first appellate Court, the Court has considered the oral evidence of the plaintiff wherein he has shown ignorance about the measurement of the construction as well as the length of his house and also withheld the registry of the house due to which the Court could not be able to reach to a proper conclusion, decided issue