JUDGMENT Heard the Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant was defendant 5 before the Trial Court, in a suit for mandatory injunction directing removal of the appellant's bunk, which was erected on the road margin. The Trial Court having decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court having affirmed the same, as admittedly, the suit shops were erected on the road margin and on public property, the present appeal is filed seeking to raise the following questions as purported substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in passing a judgment against the defendant 4 who was dead during the pendency of the suit which is nullity in the eye of law? (ii) Whether the Courts below were justified in passing judgment against the appellant gong beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court? (iii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in entertaining the suit when there was an alternative and efficacious remedy that was available under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? (iv) Whether the Trial Court was justified in entertaining the suit inspite of an express bar under the statute involving the affairs of the State?" 3. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the appellant is not competent to question the judgment on behalf of defendant 4, even if he was dead as on the date of the judgment and therefore, the same would not arise for consideration. Insofar as the second question is concerned, it cannot be said that the Civil Court was without the jurisdiction in addressing the suit for mandatory injunction in the frame in which it was brought, since the State Government as well as other parties were made as defendants and it was failure on their part in acting in accordance with law, that the plaintiff had been driven to the suit. Insofar as the third question is concerned, there is no alternative remedy available to the plaintiff under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. It was possibly, a statute under which the State could have acted. Hence, that is also not a question that arises for consideration. Insofar as the third question is concerned, there is no alternative remedy available to the plaintiff under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. It was possibly, a statute under which the State could have acted. Hence, that is also not a question that arises for consideration. Insofar as the fourth question is concerned, that the plaintiff was not competent, to question the encroachment on behalf of the State is concerned, is not tenable, since there was an interest of the appellant, direct or indirect, which was involved in seeking the relief. It cannot be said that it was entirely a matter for the State, which was sought to be questioned in the suit. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The appeal is rejected.