IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7530 of 2003. Radhey Shyam son of Shri Suwa Lal. VERSUS Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Others Date Of Order ::: 24/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Ashok Gaur, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/respondent no.4 Ram Prasad, filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land, which was decreed by the S.D.O. vide its judgment dated 11.05.2000 (annexure-1) and the said judgment was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as Second Appellate Court, therefore, there is concurrent finding of fact by all the three Courts that the plaintiff/respondent no.4 is a recorded tenant of the disputed land and he is entitled to get a decree of injunction in his favour. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner contended that he filed counter claim before the learned trial Court itself contending therein that earlier the land was recorded in his name, and the plaintiff filed a suit in the trial Court, which was dismissed, therefore, it was a duty of the learned trial Court to consider the said fact, which was pleaded in the written statement, therefore, the judgments of the trial Court as well as appellate Courts are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The trial Court in its impugned order has categorically mentioned that earlier a suit filed in the year, 1985 was in respect of correction of entry in the Revenue Record, which was wrongly entered in favour of the defendant, and during the pendency of that suit the necessary correction was made in the Revenue Record by the concerned authority, and in these circumstances the suit was dismissed, as withdrawn and it was not dismissed on merits. The trial Court has also mentioned that the defendant has not led any oral or documentary evidence in support of its case or counter claim. This fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner also during the arguments of the case. I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by all the three Courts. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/