IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 83 of 2008 1. Smt. Manju Panwar W/o Sri Rajendra Singh Panwar R/o Village Badkot, Tehsil Rishikesh District Dehradun. 2. Nathi Lal Silswal S/o Late Sri Santram Silswal R/o Village Dandi, Tehsil Rishikesh District Dehradun. 3. Rajendra Singh Sajwan S/o Sri Bir Singh Sajwan R/o Village Dandi, Tehsil Rishikesh District Dehradun. 4. Vijay Singh Bhandari S/o Sri Dalip Singh Bhandari R/o Village Dujiawala, Tehsil Rishikesh District Dehradun. 5. Pyar Singh Pundir S/o Late Sri Gulab Singh Pundir R/o Village Dujiawala, Tehsil Rishikesh District Dehradun. ….....Appellants. Versus 1. Smt. Malti Mamgain W/o Sri Waswanand Mamgain R/o Kailash Gate, 14 Bigha Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. 2. Sri Nand Kishore Sharma S/o Late Sri Murti Ram Sharma R/o Village Dandi, P.O. Dandi Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 3. Smt. Madhuri Sharma W/o Sri Nand Kishore Sharma R/o ……….Respondents. Shri A.M. Saklani, Advocate, for the appellants. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Shri A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants and perused the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2008, passed by 2 first appellate court (District Judge, Dehradun), in civil appeal No. 24 of 2008, whereby the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is affirmed. 2. I have gone through the copy of the plaint of the suit, which is annexed as annexure-13 to the affidavit filed by the appellants. From the contents of the plaint itself the suit appears to be barred by Section 106 of U.P. Panchayati Raj Act and also hit by Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 331 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that the land belongs to Gaon Sabha and the defendants have encroached upon the land in suit. Neither Gaon Sabha nor the State is impleaded as a party to the suit nor could the relief have been sought in respect of the encroachment allegedly made by the defendant in the civil court. 3. Having gone through the order passed by the trial court and judgment and decree passed by first appellate court, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal nor the impugned orders require any interference of this Court. 4. The appeal is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 18.12.2008 Sweta 3 4