JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Merta, District Nagaur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta, District Nagaur, whereby, the trial court had decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, has been upheld. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondent plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant Gram Panchayat with the averments that on 28.01.2000 he purchased a plot from Prem Raj S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Jat by a registered sale deed; a Patta No. 31 dated 15.10.1981 was issued by Gram Panchayat to said Shri Prem Raj and possession was handed over on the same date; Prem Raj was granted permission by the Gram Panchayat on 10.01.1988 to raise construction; the said Prem Raj remained in possession of the suit plot from 15.10.1981 to 28.01.2000, wherein, he had raised construction and started residing therein; after purchasing the plot, the plaintiff had collected seven trolleys stones for construction and the defendant through its Gram Panchayat misusing their position, claiming the land to be Government land got the said stones removed; when the said action was opposed by the plaintiff's wife, she was abused and was threatened; whereafter a notice No. 1999/2000 dated 28.02.2000 was issued, which was baseless as the land was not Government land; the Gram Panchayat has no right on the said land and the defendant is bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff and illegally trespass on the said land; earlier a suit being Suit No. 181/2000 was filed for permanent injunction, which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on 18.12.2001; a notice dated 04.10.2001 was issued, which was received by the defendant; however, no reply was given; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. 3. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant disputing the averments made in the plaint; it was contended that Patta was never issued to Prem Raj and Prem Raj had no right to sell the said land; the possession of the land was never handed over to Prem Raj and no permission was granted; it was claimed that the plaintiff in the garb of illegal Patta and sale was seeking to trespass on land of the Gram Panchayat; permission was granted to file fresh suit, but not on the same cause of action; proper notice was not given; proper Court fees was not filed; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. 4. The trial court framed nine issues. On behalf of the plaintiff - six witnesses were examined and eight documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant no oral evidence was produced and only certified copies of the previous litigation between the parties were filed, which were marked as Exhibit- A/1 to Exhibit-A/8. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was owned by the plaintiff and he was in possession of the same; no evidence was produced by the defendant to prove the Patta as fraudulent; the suit was filed after giving notice and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was not maintainable; the suit was filed within limitation; the suit was filed on proper court fees and as the previous suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh, it cannot be said that the suit was barred and ultimately decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from interfering in his possession. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant filed first appeal before the District Judge, Merta, who noticed that the defendant was granted 23 opportunities to lead evidence between 27.07.2007 to 26.05.2009 and if they had any substantial evidence, the same would have been produced; there was no legal basis for claiming the Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat as fraudulent and no action was taken by the Gram Panchayat regarding the said Patta and finding no substance in the appeal, dismissed the same. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions made before the trial court and the first appellate court and again claimed that the Patta issued in favour of Prem Raj was fraudulent and having once filed the suit, after withdrawing the same, the present suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The judgments of both the courts below and a perusal of the record of the trial court reveals that the plaintiff came out with the case that the land was owned by Prem Raj based on Patta issued in the year 1981, which came to be transferred to him by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2000 and the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat with mala fide intentions was seeking to dispossess the plaintiff; in the written statement the suit was sought to be defended by alleging the Patta as fraudulent and the suit being barred; the plaintiff produced six witnesses and exhibited eight documents; the witnesses were cross-examined by the appellant and in the cross-examination nothing material could be brought on record so as to displace the case of the plaintiff; the Patta, sale deed and construction permission were produced; despite sufficient evidence, the defendant failed to lead any evidence in support of its case that the Patta was fraudulent and illegal, though the burden of the said issue was cast on the defendant; after analyzing the evidence, the trial court and the first appellate court came to the conclusion that the suit property was owned by the plaintiff and the plea regarding the Patta being fraudulent was baseless; the said concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact and the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any perversity in the said findings. 10. So far as filing of second suit is concerned, admittedly, the previous suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh and, therefore, the present suit cannot be said to be barred in view of the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 (3) CPC.Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******