CSA 200/92 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.200/1992 Gokul Chand and another Vs. Kasam Ali Date Of Judgment :: 26th February, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Amit Jindal, for appellant. None is present for the respondent. ............... By the Court :- This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24/9/1992 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Bundi in Civil Appeal No.4/1992 whereby the judgment and decree dated 4/11/1991 passed by Munsif, Bundi in Civil Suit No.262/1984 was affirmed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent Kasam Ali filed a suit for declaration and compensation against the defendant-appellants stating therein that house of the defendants situated in Khandar Pada, Bundi which is adjacent to the house of the plaintiff is in dilapidated condition; that filthy articles kept by the defendants adjacent to the wall of the plaintiff's house created nuisance and on that account filth and water come in plaintiff's house thereby foundation of the wall got damaged, therefore, he also claimed CSA 200/92 (2) damages to the tune of Rs.2200/-. 3. The defendants denied the averments made in the plaint and stated in their written statement that plaintiff has closed drain of water coming from his house, therefore such situation has arisen. 4. The trial court framed the issues and after recording the evidence decreed the suit of mandatory injunction as well as awarded Rs.2200/- as compensation. 5. Learned First Appellate Court found the appeal barred by limitation and also dismissed the appeal considering the case on merits. 6. None is present for the respondent despite of service. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are old persons and they were not informed by their counsel about the judgment of the trial court, therefore, they could not file appeal well within limitation and as soon as they got knowledge they obtained certified copy and filed the appeal, therefore there were sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. It was then submitted that both the courts below did not appreciate the evidence properly and in mechanical manner decreed the suit without cogent evidence. 8. I have considered the above submissions. It is not disputed that appellant-defendants put their appearance before the CSA 200/92 (3) Munsif, Bundi and they also led their evidence and after hearing the submissions of both the parties Munsif, Bundi decreed the suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellants were not having any knowledge about the proceedings and judgment in the suit. The appeal has been filed much beyond the period of limitation and reason given by the appellants that they were not informed by their counsel about the judgment was rightly found not acceptable by the learned First Appellate Court. So far merit of the case is concerned, a substantial question was framed by this Court “whether the judgments & decrees of both the lower courts are based on no evidence ?”, but it appears that the trial court has considered the evidence led by the parties in detail and finding of fact arrived by the trial court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court after considering the entire evidence and material available on the record. Therefore, in this situation where appeal filed before the First Appellate Court was time barred and also keeping in view that there is concurrent finding of fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 9. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. H5