CSA 169/05 Mohan Lal Vs. Shyam Sunder through LRs. (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.169/2005 Mohan Lal Vs. Shyam Sunder through Lrs. Date Of Judgment :: 2nd September, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. R.K. Mathur, for appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain on behalf of Mr. Manu Bhargava, for respondents. ....... By the Court :- This is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 28/1/2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar whereby the appeal filed by the respondent- defendant has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 24/10/2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alwar in Civil Suit No.116/2002, by which the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was decreed, has been set aside. 2. The controversy involved in the present matter in nut shell is that appellant-plaintiff claims his possession over the disputed land as a licensee of the Municipal Board, Alwar and his case is that according to the judgment dated 29/9/1982 also the disputed land is a part of the rented premises, which is in his possession and therefore he cannot be dispossessed without due CSA 169/05 Mohan Lal Vs. Shyam Sunder through LRs. (2) process of law. The defendant failed to file any written statement. 3. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties decree the suit of the plaintiff but in appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission and perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the disputed land was in possession of the plaintiff as a licensee of the Municipal Board, Alwar, therefore, defendant- respondent had no right to dispossess him forcibly and the first appellate court without properly appreciating the evidence and material reversed the findings of the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the first appellate court and contended that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment Ex.1 which was passed on 29/9/1982 against the Municipal Board in a suit of permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff and in that suit he only claimed 6ftx10ft land (Chabutara) on rent which is only 60 sq.ft. but contrary to this in the instant suit he claimed CSA 169/05 Mohan Lal Vs. Shyam Sunder through LRs. (3) 14ftx14½ft land which in total is 201 sq.ft. First Appellate Court taking into consideration all these facts along with the fact that defendant-respondent had purchased 121 sq.ft. land from the Municipal Board allowed the appeal and reversed the findings of the trial court in which I do not find any illegality or impropriety. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 8. Consequently, this appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D28