1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : Rajasthan State Industries Development Investment Corporation Ltd. & Others Vs. Deendayal (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.192/2008) DATE OF JUDGMENT : April 13, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Ravi Bhansali for the appellants. Mr. Arjun Purohit for the respondent. BY THE COURT : This second appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation, Jaipur and General Manager of the Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Jaisalmer in Civil Original Suit No.39/97 and, so also, order of the District Judge, Jaisalmer dated 16.01.2003 passed in Civil Regular First Appeal No.28/2000, whereby, the appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the 2 original suit. The case of the appellant Corporation is that the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff on 30.08.1997 for permanent injunction, in which, it was stated that commercial plots No.S/26 and S/33 were allotted in his favour and according to the allotment construction was to be started within six months and was to be completed and, so also, business was to be started within 24 months. Said allotment was cancelled in the month of December 1993 on account of non-starting construction and this fact came to the knowledge of respondent-plaintiff on 13.05.1997 when he received a communication from the appellant-defendants, therefore, he filed a suit for restraining the appellant-defendants from removing the construction made by the respondent-plaintiff and not to take over possession forcibly. The said suit filed by the respondent was decreed in his favour after framing six issues and decree was passed restraining the appellant-defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent forcibly. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appellant-defendants preferred appeal before the District Judge, Jaisalmer which, however, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2003 as 3 noted above while upholding the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2000. Main contention of the appellants is that the trial Court committed error while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that without challenging the cancellation order, no such relief was to be granted by the trial Court and, so also, in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff there was no prayer for quashing the cancellation order, therefore, the judgment rendered by the trial Court is erroneous because without quashing the order of cancellation, no such relief can be granted. I have perused the relief clause in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. It is obvious that no such prayer for quashing the cancellation order was made but the trial Court, after adjudication upon the six issues framed in the suit, decreed the suit only to the extent that plaintiff shall not be dispossessed forcibly. In my opinion, finding of the trial Court to the extent of not dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly is neither perverse nor incorrect. More so, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and granted the relief to the extent that he shall not be dispossessed forcibly from the premises in question. Whether or not the plaintiff challenged the order of 4 cancellation, it is altogether different and, therefore, if the cancellation order is still in existence, then, obviously the appellant-defendants can execute the said cancellation order in accordance with law. On that count, however, neither the finding of the trial Court can be held perverse nor illegality can be attached to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal and impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. This appeal is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.