JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 26.09.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jodhpur has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiffs respondents filed a suit or permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant with the averments that their residential plots were situated in Khasra No. 805/769 at village Jodhpur; the Pattas were issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Agriculture Land Conversion, Jodhpur on 20.03.1990 in favour of the plaintiffs; development charges were deposited on 17.03.1997 with the defendant and they were in possession of their plots; on the eastern side of their plots a road admeasuring 16x166 ft. was situated, which was being used by them; on 30.12.2004 the Junior Engineer of the defendant visited the site and observed that from Khasra No. 9 after 60 ft. road plots admeasuring 40x60 ft. would be carved out and as the land was not available, the land of the road and plaintiffs' plots would be appropriated; it was claimed that the defendant has no right to carve out plots by overlapping with the plaintiffs' plots and the land which is part of the road; ultimately, it was prayed that the permanent injunction be issued directing the defendant not to create plots overlapping with the land of the road and plaintiffs' house and further not to allot the same. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant, inter alia, submitting that the land of Khasra No. 805/769 was land of Shyam Nagar and the plaintiffs have encroached on the land belonging to the defendant and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to remove the encroachment by undertaking due process; the land which has been left for ingress and egress from the plaintiffs house shall not be interfered with; no threat as alleged was ever given; notice under Section 98 of the Urban Improvement Act was not given and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs affidavit of two witnesses were filed, however, PW-1 Laxmi Devi did not appear for cross-examination, PW-2 Shanti Devi was cross-examined and five documents were produced. 4. The trial court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs affidavit of two witnesses were filed, however, PW-1 Laxmi Devi did not appear for cross-examination, PW-2 Shanti Devi was cross-examined and five documents were produced. On behalf of the defendant-appellant neither any oral nor documentary evidence was produced. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that it was proved from the oral and documentary evidence that on the eastern side of plaintiffs' plots a 16x164 ft. way for the purpose of ingress and egress from plaintiffs' house was situated and as the same was the only way for the purpose, the defendant was not entitled to carve out plots of lands overlapping the said way and plaintiffs' land and the plaintiffs were entitled for grant of permanent injunction; the issue relating to not giving of prior notice could not be proved and other issues were also decided against the defendant for lack of evidence; ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit and restrained the defendant-appellant from interfering with the user of the land of way and the plots of land. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, who by the impugned judgment upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below fell in error in decreeing the suit by the plaintiffs and the findings recorded are vitiated. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 9. In the present case, as against the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant appellant no evidence either oral or documentary was produced; the nature of case was such, wherein, the plaintiffs were claiming existence of way and plots owned by them, which was sought to be disputed by the appellant; in support of the plaintiffs' claim evidence was produced, which in the opinion of two courts below was sufficient for them to come to the conclusion that 16x164 ft. way existed, which was the only way for ingress and egress from plaintiffs' plots; for dispelling the said finding, it was required of the defendant-appellant to produce evidence, which it failed to do. way existed, which was the only way for ingress and egress from plaintiffs' plots; for dispelling the said finding, it was required of the defendant-appellant to produce evidence, which it failed to do. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the findings recorded by the courts below on the said aspect was perverse. 10. The finding on the issue being finding of fact and both the courts having concurrently found against the appellant, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******