1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Hari Narayan Sharma V/s. Municipal Corporation & Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.358/2010) S.B. Civil Second Appeal Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code Date of Order :: October 22, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Arvind Gupta for the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit for permanent injunction and aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has upheld the former judgment, the appellant has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff/appellant on 01.06.2001. He pleaded that he is the proprietor of Pandit Juice Centre, sitauted in Plot No.20, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2 near Rajmandir Cinema. He had taken the said premises on rent of Rs.3,000/- per month from respondent No.3. It was further stated that he is running the said juice center since 1986 in the said suit shop comprising tin-shed with compound wall. It was further stated that earlier the said area was vested in UIT, and thereafter in JDA, and now in Municipal Corporation Jaipur. It was further stated that respondent No.3 in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 & 2 succeeded in getting issue an alleged notice issued on 24.05.2001 for demolition of the shop. The plaintiff-appellant was served with the notice under Section 170(11)(a)(b) of Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959. A joint reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; respondent No.3 filed his separate reply. The learned trial Court had framed three issues. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2009 dismissed the said suit. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the plaintiff/appellant challenged the same by filing a regular first appeal. The learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 06.07.2010, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court have overlooked the fact that notice dated 24.05.2001 was issued by an officer of the Municipal Corporation who was not authorized to issue the same. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed a 3 illegality and has caused injustice by dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2009. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that according to the learned trial Court, the appellant did not submit any evidence to establish his case. Thus, in absence of any cogent and valid evidence, the learned trial Court was certainly justified in dismissing the suit. The impugned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court merely confirms the judgment dated 30.01.2009. Therefore, even the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. Lastly, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-