JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff in a suit for injunction and removal of encroachment against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali District Pali in Civil Appeal No.18/2007 "Maga Ram v. Smt. Dhapu & Anr. " by which, the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed being barred by limitation. The learned Trial Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Desuri, District Pali had also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2007 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 31/1998 "Maga Ram v. Smt. Dhapu & Ors." . 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff-Maga Ram against the concurrent rejection of his claim, as aforesaid. 3. Today, after hearing both the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the following substantial question of law does arise for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal:- "Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff only on the ground of limitation which was filed against rejection of the suit ?" 4. After framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement and after recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Maga Ram on 27.02.2007. After framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement and after recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Maga Ram on 27.02.2007. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court is quoted below for ready reference:- " 8- rudh la[;k 1% bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA oknh exkjke Lo;a izdj.k esa ih0M0&1 ds :i esa ijhf{kr gqvk gSA ftlus U;k;ky; esa l'kiFk lk{; esa dFku fd;k gS fd mlds edku dk uke 21 x 57 QhV gSA ftlds 4 x 57 QhV yEcs Hkkx ij vfrdze.k izfroknh ds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA oknh ds edku dk vly iV~Vk izn'kZ&1 gS rFkk uD'kk izn'kZ&2 gSA esjk edku iV~Vs ds vuqlkj 21 QhV pkSM+k x 57 QhV yEck FkkA ih0M0&2&nsojkt] ih0M0&3&iznhi dqekj] ih0M0&4&Hkhdkjke us Hkh viuh l'kiFk lk{; esa oknh ds dFkuksa dks lEiq"V fd;k gSA izdj.k esa/kkiw vkSj ekaxhyky ds 'kiFk&i= izfroknh lk{; esa is'k fd;s x;s gSa fdUrq buls ftjg ugha gksus ds dkj.k budh lk{; dks izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djrs le; ugha i<+k tk jgk gS rFkk Mh0M0&1&'kadjyky U;k;ky; esa is'k gqvk gS] ftlus vfrdze.k ds rF; ls badkj fd;k gS vkSj blesa Mh0M0&3&'ks"kkjke ijhf{kr gqvk gS] ftlus U;k;ky; ds le{k l'kiFk lk{; esa dFku fd;k gS fd eSaus jkuhxkao esa fLFkr oknh ,oa izfroknh /kkiw ,oa 'kadj ds jgoklh iqjkus cus edkuksa dk ekSdk ns[kdj uD'kk cuk;k FkkA ftlesa /kkiw vkSj 'kadj ds edku dh nhokj ,0 ls ch0 cuh gqbZ gS rFkk ekdZ ,0 ls bZ0 rd iqjkuh nhokj FkhA oknh dk edku 21 x 57 QhV yEck&pkSM+k gS] ftldk eSaus uki fd;k Fkk vkSj ftjg esa bl xokg ds }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd oknh ds edku dk uki ckgj ls fd;k FkkA bl izdkj izfroknh dh vksj ls ijhf{kr Mh0M0&3&'ks"kkjke dh lk{; ls Li"V gS fd oknh dk ftruh tehu ij edku cuk gqvk gS] og 21 x 57 QhV gSA bl izdkj i=koyh ij tks lk{; vk;h gS] mlls ;g c[kqchg lkfcr gS fd oknh vius 21 x 57 QhV ds Hkw[k.M ij edku fufeZr gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj rudh la[;k&1 fo:) oknh fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA 9- rudh la[;k 2% bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij gSA ftlesa izfroknh Mh0M0&1&'kadjyky dh vksj ls l'kiFk lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd okn ds lkFk is'k fd;s uD'ks esa ekdZ ,0 ls bZ0 iqjkuh nhokj ds LFkku ij ,0 ls bZ0 lh/kh nhokj cuk;h x;h gS vkSj vfrdze.k ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk blds leFkZu esa Mh0M0&3&'ks"kkjke us Hkh dFku fd;k gS rFkk Mh0M0&3&'ks"kkjke ds }kjk oknh ds Hkw[k.M dk uki djus ij mDr Hkwfe dk uke 21 x 57 QhV gh crk;k gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj ;g rudh cgd izfroknh fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA 10- rudh la[;k 3% bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij FkkA izfroknh }kjk bldks uksV&izsl fd;k x;k gS vr% rudh dk fuLrkj.k blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 11- rudh la[;k 4% bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij gSA vf/koDrk izfroknh ds }kjk bl okn dks izfroknh dks ijs'kku djus ds fy;s is'k djus ds dkj.k nl gtkj gtkZuk fnyk;s tkus dk rdZ fn;k x;k gS fdUrq oknh ds fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ds rgr izLrqr okn is'k fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g rudh fo:) izfroknhx.k fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA 12- vuqrks"k% pwafd mijksDr leLr foospukuqlkj rudh la[;k&1 fo:) oknh] rudh la[;k&2 cgd izfroknh] rudh la[;k&3 uksV&izsl ,oa rudh la[;k&4 fo:) izfroknh fu.khZr dh x;h gS] vr% oknh }kjk izLrqr okn fo:) izfroknhx.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA 13- vkns'k% vr% oknh }kjk izLrqr okn ckcr~ fu"ks/kkKk o gVk;s tkus vfrdze.k fo:) izfroknhx.k vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ eqdnek i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA rn~uqlkj fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA Sd/- ( lqjsUnz [kjs ) flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] izFke oxZ] nslwjh] ftyk&ikyh jkt0 " 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of rejection of suit aforesaid dated 27.02.2007, the plaintiff-Maga Ram filed the first appeal before the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali namely, Civil Appeal (Decree) No.18/2007 "Maga Ram v. Smt. Dhapu & Anr." which was, however, dismissed on 01.09.2010 only on the ground of limitation being barred by limitation for a period of about five months. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court for affirming the judgment and decree of rejection of suit by the learned Trial Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:- 10- eSaus bl ij fopkj fd;kA fu.kZ; fnukad 27-2-2007 esa djhc ikap ekg bDdhl fnu dh nsjh vihy esa dh xbZ gS ftlesa ls rhl fnu de djsa rks Hkh pkj ekg bDdhl fnu vihy nsjh ls izLrqr gqbZ gSA ftlds fy;s tks dkj.k crk;k x;k gS fd ekSftt O;fDr;ksa dk bartkj le>kbl ds fy, fd;k] ;g ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd jkthukek vxj gksrk rks fdlh Hkh LVst ij vihy djus ds ckn Hkh gks ldrk Fkk rFkk vihy djus esa dksbZ dkuwuh ck/kk ugha FkhA dsoy ;g fy[k nsus ek= ls fd ekSftt O;fDr;ksa dk le>kbl gsrq bartkj fd;k i;kZIr ugha gS] fdu ekSftt O;fDr;ksa dk bartkj fd;kA fnu izfrfnu dk nsjh dk dkj.k Hkh fy[kk tkuk pkfg,A ekSftt O;fDr;ksa ds uke Hkh fy[ks tkus pkfg,A ,slk yxrk gS fd dsoy lhek vof/k dk ykHk mBkus ds fy, ;g rdZ fy;k x;k gS tks fof/klEer ugha le>k tkrk u gh U;k; ds iz;kstu ds fy, bruh nsjh dks {kek fd;k tkuk t:jh gSA fulansg vihy nsjh dks {kek fd;k tkuk t:jh gSA fulansg vihy vof/k ckgj gSA vr% vihy vof/k ckgj gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 11- vkns'k% vihykFkhZ exkjke }kjk izLrqr ;g vihy fo:) jsLiksaMsaV Jherh /kkiw oxSjg vof/k ckgj gksus ls [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA bl vkns'k dh ,d izfr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks] v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ds lkFk rRdky izsf"kr fd;k tkosA Sd/- ( ?ku';ke fxjh ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] ckyh ftyk&ikyh jktLFkku 6. The learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Arora, appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff only on the ground of limitation, and it should have decided the appeal on its merits. The learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Arora, appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff only on the ground of limitation, and it should have decided the appeal on its merits. The learned counsel submitted that the matter regarding the dispute between the parties was sent for mediation and the plaintiff was under the impression that upon mediation by the reputed persons in the Panchayat, the dispute would be sorted out and, therefore, the delay of about five months in filing the appeal before the first appellate court was occurred which ought to have been condoned and the matter should be heard and decided on its own merits. The learned counsel also submitted that the interest of justice would be served, if the appeal is restored to the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali for decision afresh on the merits of the case. 7. The learned counsels, Mr. Hemant Parmar and Mr. L.R. Bishnoi, appearing for the respondents-defendants have no serious objection in the aforesaid proposition of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of the both Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the learned First Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff only on the ground of limitation, which was delayed by only about five months. In the opinion of this Court, the learned First Appellate Court was also not justified in disbelieving the statement of the plaintiff that the appeal was kept pending for mediation by the reputed persons of Panchayat and, therefore, the delay was caused in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the substantial question of law framed herein above deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and the present second appeal deserves to be allowed; and at the same time, the matter deserves to remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties concerned. 9. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the substantial question of law framed herein above deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and the present second appeal deserves to be allowed; and at the same time, the matter deserves to remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties concerned. 9. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff-Smt. Bhagwati Devi W/o late Mangla Ram stands allowed, and while answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali is set aside and the appeal is restored for decision afresh by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali on merits. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******