HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 435/2018

Brij Lal S/o Shri Narayan Das, R/o Kalwa Mod, Tehsil Buhana,

District-Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Buhana

Jhunjhunu

2.

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Khetri,

District Jhunjhunu

3.

Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department,

Jhunjhunu

4.

Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,

Buhana

5.

Shiv Kumar S/o Pala Ram,

6.

Ramotar S/o Palaram,

Both Residents Of Kalwa Mod, Buhana, Tehsil Buhana,

District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

7.

Krishan Kumar Agarwal S/o Premcjhand Agarwal, R/o-

Dhakamandi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.0

----Respondents/Defendants

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Gourav Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

14/11/2022

1.

Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by

the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 passed in Civil

Regular Appeal No.08/2017 by the Court of Additional District

Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, affirming the judgment and

(2 of 3)

[CSA-435/2018]

decree dated 03.02.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.54/2013 by the

Court of Civil Judge, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, whereby and

whereunder civil suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction

filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed on merits.

2.

Heard counsel for appellant and perused the impugned

judgments.

3.

It appears from record that plaintiff instituted the present

suit for removal of an electric poll, alleging inter alia that private

defendants No.6 and 7 have got installed that electric poll in front

of the plaintiff’s house on the government land which is virtually

an encroachment by defendants. Plaintiff claimed that one plot in

Village Buhana was allotted by the Gram Panchayat in the year

1975 and in front of his plot, defendants No.5 to 7 have made

some encroachment, but plaintiff neither produced his patta nor

adduced any evidence to show the measurement of his plot. In

absence of any cogent and substantive evidence of plaintiff, his

case of making any encroachment by defendants, has rightly

disbelieved by the courts below.

4.

As far as installation of an electric poll is concerned, both

courts below have recorded a fact finding that the electric poll is

installed on the government land, laying between the plaintiff’s

plot and the road. It has been observed that plaintiff admits

construction of road, therefore, his case for seeking mandatory

injunction for removal of the electric poll has also rightly been

declined. It has also come on record that plaintiff sought relief

against the Public Works Department and impleaded concerned

government officers of Public Works Department and Ajmer Vidyut

Vitran Nigam Ltd. as defendants No.1 to 4, but no statutory notice

under Section 80 CPC was given prior to institution of the suit.

(3 of 3)

[CSA-435/2018]

5.

In overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds that both

courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional

error in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit on merits.

6.

The fact findings recorded by both courts below do not give

rise to any substantial question of law as same are based on

evidence on record and do not suffer from any perversity, nor

based on misreasing/non-reading of evidence, nor are against the

settled proposition of law.

7.

In case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.

Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that where two courts have reached

a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material

documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither

can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably

could not have reached such a finding, then High Court i