JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application No. 10934/2012 under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The matter is taken up for admission. 4. A challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Kota as also the order dated 07.05.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), South, Kota whereby the plaintiff-appellant's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed as not maintainable with reference to the power of the Court under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. In my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is made out in this second appeal inasmuch as the suit for permanent injunction fundamentally related to a dispute with regard to the grant of the compensation to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894'). Section 30 of the Act of 1894 provides that when the amount of compensation has been settled on the passing of an award under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, such disputes are to be referred by the Collector on an appropriate application made for the decision of the competent Court. The facts of the case make it evident that the case of the plaintiff before the courts below was that the compensation granted to the defendant-respondent Nos. 3 & 4 included a parcel of land in which the plaintiff had an interest and that compensation to that extent had been wrongly determined for defendant-respondent Nos. 3 & 4 owing to which they deserved to be injuncted from receiving such compensation. The dispute sought to be agitated before the trial court is fully covered by Section 30 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable and rightly dismissed by the trial court as also the lower appellate court. 7. Consequently, I find no force in this civil second appeal. The dispute sought to be agitated before the trial court is fully covered by Section 30 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable and rightly dismissed by the trial court as also the lower appellate court. 7. Consequently, I find no force in this civil second appeal. The same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******