HIRU Vs. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO Courts have non suited the plaintiffs by dismissing the suit. It is now in this second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, the plaintiffs have contended that the appeal involves substantial question of law as required to be made out and hence, it be admitted. So the question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law ? The impugned judgment and decree is dated 26-11-2002, passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Barwani, in C. A. No. 10-A of 2000, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 15-A of 1998, decided by Civil Judge, Class II, Rajpur, on 29-1-2000.

(2.) 4 plaintiffs (non-appellants herein) filed a suit by invoking the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC claiming in substance a declaration and injunction against the defendant alleging inter alia that they have a right to remain in occupation of the land in question and carry on the business of manufacture of Bricks. It is alleged that they have paid some tax to Panchayat and hence, acquired a right to retain the land to carry on their business of manufacture of the bricks. It is alleged that since they are doing this business for last 200 years and hence, State and/or Panchayat has no right to interfere in their possession and hence, injunction is also claimed. The defence was that of denial.

(3.) IT is this issue which was probed and negatived by two Courts below giving rise to filing of this second appeal under Section 100 ibid,