JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Board, Rajgarh, District Churu, feeling aggrieved by rejection of the appeal (No. 1/2005) vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred as the "Appellate Court") vide which, the learned Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Class, Rajgarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Civil Original Suit No. 46/2004 (38/2000) whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein), seeking mandatory injunction, was decreed.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit against the defendant - Municipal Board, seeking a direction to the defendant to catch the stray pigs wandering in the city, as they created nuisance and posed a threat of life and property to the residents.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-

izfdzz;k lafgrk 1908&/kkjk 100&jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959&/kkjk 271&vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk gsrq fMdzh fd;k & dkfjr djus okys vkokjk lqvjksa dks idMus dk funsZ'k nsus gsrq okn is'k fd;k&leorhZ fu"d"kZ&/kkjk 91 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr okn is'k fd;k vkSj dksVZ ls vuqefr yh&vkns'k 1 fu;e 8 ds izko/kku vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gS & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 271 ds vUrxZr uksfVl vko';d ugh gS D;ksfd cksMZ us dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugh fd;k & yksd U;wlsUl dk ekeyk & fu.khZ; vihy esa fof/k dk lkjHkwr iz'u vUroZfyr ugh gS o [kkfjt dhA

1- vk;k fd oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dk vkKkid fpjLFkk;h O;kns'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS fd dLck jktx< ftyk pq: us lkoZtfud LFkyksa /kkfeZd LFkyksa o lMdks ij vkokjk ?kweus okys lqvjks ftuds ekfyd mudks vkokjk ;k [kqYyk NksM nsrs gS mDr lqvjksa dks izfroknhx.k ckMks ;k fiatjks eas can dj nsos vFkok bu lwvjkas dks izfroknhx.k uxj ikfydk jktx< ds /kkjd esa can dj nsosA

2- vk;k oknh us izfrfuf/kRo Lo:i dk nkok is'k fd;k gS rFkk dkuwuh dk;Zokgh iwjh ugh djus ls nkok pyus ;ksX; ugh gS

3- vk;k lwvjks ds ekfydkas dks i{kdkj okn ugha cuk;k x;k bl dkj.k nkok pyus ;ksX; ugh dkfcy [kkfjt gS

4- vk;k oknhx.k us uxj ekfydk ij izHkko tekus ds fy;s dk;Zokgh lafLFkr dh gS

5- vk;k oknhx.k ds ikl oSdfYid mik; miyC/k gksus ds dkj.k dk;Zokgh pyus ;ksX; ugh gS

6- vk;k jkT; ljdkj vko';d i{kdkj gS ftls i{kdkj okn gh cuk;k x;k

7- vk;k 271 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e dk uksfVl ugh nsus ds dkj.k nkok pyus ;ksX; ugh gS

8- vuqrks"kA

4. The Trial Court, after dealing with the evidence and material on record, decreed the suit and passed the decree in the following terms:-

1- v/;{k uxj ikfydk jktx< 2 vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh jktx< pq: Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fuEu izdkj fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA

1- izfroknhx.k ds fo:) vkKkid fpjLFkkbZ O;kns'k bl vk'k; dk ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izFker% rks izfroknhx.k uxj ikfydk jktx< dLck jktx< esa ;g mn~?kks"k.kk djkosa fd ftu O;fDr;ksa ds ikl vkokjk lwvj gS vFkok tks O;fDr lwvjksa dks ikyrs gS os vius lwvjksa dks [kqyk ugh NksMs vkSj ;fn bl mn~?kks"k.kk ds ckn 7 fnu ds vanj dksbZ O;fDr vius lwvjksa dks [kqyk NksMrs gS rks izfroknhx.k lkoZtfud LFkkukas ij vFkok dLck jktx< esa vkokjk :i ls xfy;ksa esa ?kqeus okys lwvjks dks idMdj mUgsa uxj ikfydk jktx< pq: ds QkVd esa can dj ysosa vkSj rRi'pkr fu;ekuqlkj vkokjk lwvjksa dks ;fn muds ekfyd tqekZuk Hkjdj i'kqvks dks QkVd ls ugh NqMokrs gS rks izfroknhx.k uxj ikfydk jktx< pq: ,sls lwvjksa dh fu;ekuqlkj uhykeh dk;Zokgh djsA vkokjk i'kqvksa o lwvjks dks lkoZtfud LFkyksa ls gVkosa rFkk dLck jktx< pq: dks ,sls vkokjk lwvjks ls gksus okyh xanxh ls cpkos ,ao dLck dks LoPN j[ksaA

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant Municipal Board preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court, after dealing with the material on record, rejected the appeal so filed by the appellant, and upheld the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2005 passed by the Trial Court.

6. Dr. Pratishtha Dave, le