1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.252/2006 Anandi Lal and Ors. vs. Nagar Palika, Rajsamand and Ors. Date : 08.03.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the appellants. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants suit for mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court and appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24.4.1998 was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs filed a suit on earlier occasion wherein the injunction decree has been granted in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs. Despite this fact the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by which the plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction against the defendants that they may be directed to restore the position. 2 After going through the reasons given in the two judgments of the courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law being involved in this appeal. Apart from it, it is clear from the copy of the judgment dated 4.3.1998 passed by the first appellate court in appeal arising out of the suit filed by the plaintiffs that the first appellate court upheld the finding of the trial court by which the trial court observed that the defendant Municipal Board will be free to remove the encroachment in accordance with law by following process of law. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Rm/