Public authorities' duty to manage public safety supersedes procedural delays in injunction suits regarding urgent matters.

Order

09/07/2025

1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents.

2. Present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, in Appeal No.9/95, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-Municipal Corporation, and affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.07.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, in Civil Suit No.140/1994.

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present second appeal are that on 05.12.1994, the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction while stating that the plaintiff/respondents are residents of Kishangarh and the main streets of the town are crowded with stray animals and the stray animals are roaming around due to lack of checks and balances in place, further this frequent movement of the crowd of said stray animals is causing various hindrances, accidents and also obstructing free flow of traffic.

4. That despite bringing the said facts to the notice of the defendants-appellants, they are not taking any steps to solve the same, therefore, the defendant-appellant may be injuncted mandatorily to take remedial measures to control the frequent movement of stray animals crowding the roads.

5. That the notice of this suit was served upon the defendant/appellant and by filing the written-statement, wherein it was stated that they have already made shelter houses for stray animals and if anyone is aggrieved from the movement of stray animals they can lodge complaint in respect of the same. It was pleaded that the present suit was filed without serving a notice under Section 271 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 , therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed three issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Brijesh Panwar as PW-2 and Sujit Prakash Sharma as PW-3.

8. In rebuttal, despite being granted an opportunity, the defendant/appellant failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence.

9. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties, passed impugned judgment and decree dated 27.07.1995, decreed the suit and directed the defendant/appellant to take remedial measures to remove the stray animals from the roads and take appropriate steps to prevent the frequent movement of the stray animals crowding of the streets.

10. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree, the defendants/appellants preferred a regular civil appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the learned Appellate Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, turned down the objections of the defendant/appellant and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.07.1995.

11. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Court, the appellant has preferred the second appeal.

12. That on 18.09.2000, while admitting the appeal the following substantial questions of law were followed:-

"1. Whether the first appellate court, being last court of fact, was required to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence consciously, with reference to the salient features of law, involved in the instant case and failure of the first appellate court, in the present case, makes the judgment impugned not su