JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The appellants (plaintiffs) Gulam Musatafa and three others have preferred the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaur, dismissing plaintiffs' Appeal No.03/2014- Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. Mukhtiyar & Ors. and upheld the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nagaur, in Civil Original Suit No.2/2010 (108/2011)-Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. Mukhtiyar & Ors., whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to 8-9 Feet wide way, has been dismissed but the counter claim of the defendant, Mukhtiyar Ahmed & Ors, was decreed in their favour. 2. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. 2. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. The relevant para/s of the judgment dated 25.01.2014 reads as under: - ^^bl izdkj rudh la[;k 1 o 2 ds fofu'p; vuqlkj tcfd oknhx.k jktdh; mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; la[;k 2 ds mRrjh rjQ] lkoZtfud jkLrk o lkoZtfud pkSd gksus ds rF; dks lkfcr ugha dj ik;s gSa ,oa rudh la[;k 3 ds fofu'p; vuqlkj izfroknhx.k vius edku dh nf{k.kh nhokj f[kldkdj fo|ky; dh nhokj o Lo;a dh nhokj ds chp fLFkfr jkLrs o pkSd dh Hkwfe edku esa feykus dk rF; oknhx.k lkfcr ugha gks ik;k gS fygktk oknhx.k dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k eqf[R;kj vgen oxSjk ds fo:) [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gS fdUrq rudh la[;k 4 o 5 ds fofu'p; vuqlkj izfroknhx.k oknhx.k ds fo:) vkKkid O;kns'k dh fMdzh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh izdV gksrs gSaA vkns'k fygktk oknhx.k xqyke eqLrQk oxSjk dh vksj ls izLrqr okn ckcr vkns'k 1 fu;e 8 lh0ih0lh0 fo:) izfroknhx.k vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS fdUrq izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr izfrnkok ¼dkmUVj Dysae½ Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd %& 1- vkKkid O;kns'k bl vkns'k dk tkjh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknhx.k izfroknhx.k dh iV~Vklqnk tk;sxk eksgYyk ftUnjku ckluh esa tks ekdZ , ch lh Mh bZ ,Q th ,p vkbZ ts ds ls tokcnkok ds layXu CywfizUV uD'kk esa nf'kZr gS esa izfroknhx.k ds mi;ksx&miHkksx] fuekZ.k vkfn esa fdlh izdkj dh ck?kk :dkoV u rks Lo;a djs u fdlh vU; ls djkosaA 2- [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA 3- mijksDrkuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ tkjh gksA lgh@& ¼vk'kqrks"k xkSflUgk½ vfr0 flfoy U;k;k/kh'k d0[k0 ,oa U;kf;d eftLVs~V izFke oxZ] ukxkSjA 3. The first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaur, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014. The first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaur, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014. The relevant portion of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 reads as under: - gekjs U;kf;d foosdkuqlkj loZizFke ;g rF; egRoiw.kZ gS fd ewy okn ds rgr vihykFkhZx.k }kjk ;g vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS fd iwoZ esa fookfnr jkLrk ds laca/k nkok U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;k x;k ftlds rgr i{kdkjku esa jkthukek is'k dj jktdh; mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; la[;k 2 ds mRrj esa fLFkr lkoZtfud ekxZ o pkSd dh Hkwfe dks crkSj jkLrk ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k] vr% ftl jkLrk dk fookn iwoZ esa pyk o iwoZ esa ftl jkLrk dks [kqyklk j[kus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk] mls ijs tkdj vc vihykFkhZx.k ekax ugha dj ldrsA ;g rF; egRoiw.kZ gS fd mDr iwohZ nhokj ds rgr ftl jkLrs dks dk;e j[kus dh vkKk nh xbZ Fkh] mlds laca/k esa vihykFkhZx.k ds }kjk izn'kZ Mh&3 uD'kk tks iwoZ nkok ds dfe'uj }kjk dlhV fd;k x;k rFkk iwoZ nkok dh fMdzh izn'kZ Mh&8 egRoiw.kZ nLrkost is'k fd;s x;sA bu nLrkostkr ds voyksdu ls ekSd ij ,0 ls ch0 ds if'pe esa ch0lh0 ls nf{k.k esa] lh0Mh0 ds if'pe esa bZ0Mh0 ds nf{k.k esa] bZ0,Q0 ds if'pe esa o ,Q0th0 ds mRrj esa Hkwfe dks loZ ekxZ gsrq [kqyk j[kk x;kA mDr laca/k esa mDr jkLrk ds rF;ksa gsrq tks lk{; vihykFkhZx.k ds rgr ewy okn esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dh xbZ mlesa ih0M0 1 xqyke eqLrQk bl fcUnq dks Lohdkj djrs gSa fd izFker% og ckluh ds LFkkbZ fuoklh ugha gSa lkFk gh xokg us bl fcUnq dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd Ldwy ds vkl iM+ksl yEckbZ pkSM+kbZ ds laca/k esa mls dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS u gh dksbZ uD'kk bl laca/k esa cukdj is'k fd;k gSA Ldwy dk dsoy ,d xsV gS] Ldwy ds pkjksa vkSj 10&10 QqV mWaph nhokj cuh gqbZ gS] Ldwy dk xsV nf{k.k dh rjQ gS ftldk njoktk yxk gqvk gSA xsV ds lkeus [kqyk pkSd gSA lkFk gh xokg ;g fcUnq Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd iwoZorhZ eqdnesa dk uD'kk izn'kZ Mh&1 ftlesa ,chlhMhbZ jkLrk crk;k x;k gS vkSj ,chlhMhbZ ds vykok vU; dksbZ jkLrk vke xqtj ds fy, ugha gS] bl uD'kk esa tks vkliM+ksl iwoZ oknhx.k }kjk fy[ks x;s gSa oSlsa gh gSA ;g rF; egRoiw.kZ gS fd bl izn'kZ Mh&1 ds rgr Ldwy dh mRrjh fn'kk ls fpirs gq, jsLiksMsUV dk edku crk;k x;k gS ftlds e/; dksbZ jkLrk mYysf[kr ugha gSA jsLiksMsUV ds nf{k.k esa Ldwy vk;k gqvk gS vkSj if'pe esa jkLrk vk;k gqvk gSA bl fcUnq dks Hkh ;g Lohdkj djrk gSA bl fcUnq dks Hkh mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izfr@jsLiksMsUV viuh iqjkuh nhokj dks vk/kh rksM+dj iqu% fuekZ.k djok jgk gS] dsoy ek= blfy, muds }kjk ;g nkok is'k fd;k x;k gS jkLrk dh o iwoZ nkos dh mDr fLFkfr dks ih0M0 2 ds }kjk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ Mh&1 esa tks jkLrk ,chlhMhbZ vafdr gS] og jkLrk vkt Hkh ekStwn gSA blds vykok vU; dksbZ jkLrk miyC/k ugha gSA ;g xokg Hkh bl fcUnq dks Lohdkj djrk gS fd jsLiks0 ds nf{k.k esa Ldwy gSA dekscs'k ;gh fLFkfr ih0M0&3 dh gSA ;g edku rFkk Ldwy ds e/; fdlh vU; jkLrs dh ekStwnxh ugha n'kkZrk gS vkSj bl fcUnq dh rkbZn djrk gS fd iwoZ esa tks jkLrk NksM+k x;k Fkk mlh ls os vkrs tkrs gSA ih0M0&4 Hkh mDr fLFkfr dks gh Li"V djrk gS iwoZ esa og Ldwy ds nf{k.k esa fdlh xyh ds laca/k esa dksbZ eqdnek ugha fd;kA lhekvksa ds laca/k esa ;g xokg Hkh ;g rF; Li"V djrk gS fd eqf[r;kj ds edku iwoZ esa pkSd] mlds ckn gkth bLekbZy dk edku gS] if'pe ls jkLrk] mRrj esa ljnkj dk edku o nf{k.k esa Ldwy gSA xokg bl lq>ko dks Lohdkj djrk gS fd eqdnek Ldwy ds vkxs pkSd ds laca/k esa ugha fd;k x;k gS vfirq xyh ds fy, fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl rF; dks Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd Ldwy ds if'pe esa xyh gSA ;g xyh if'pe okyh nf{k.k fn'kk okyh xyh esa tkrh gSA blds vykok vU; dksbZ xyh ekStwn ugha gSA vc xokgku dk ;g dguk fd jsLiksMsUV viuh lhek ls ijs tkdj fuekZ.k dk;Z dj jgk gS] bl laca/k esa u rks Ldwy dk dksbZ iV~Vk ;k lhek ukipksi is'k fd;k gS vkSj u gh foijhr esd jsLiksMsUV ds iV~Vs dk dksbZ [kaMu fd;k tk jgk gSA ih0M0&5 Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj djrk gS fd jsLiksMsUV edku ds nf{k.k esa Ldwy gS tks jkLrk igys [kqyk;k x;k Fkk og vkt Hkh ekSds ij ekStwn gSA ;gh fLFkfr ih0M0&6 tks Lo;a dfe'uj gS o ftlds }kjk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls ekSdk eqvk;uk fd;k x;k gS] bl fcUnq dks Lohdkj djrs gSa fd fookfnr laifRr ds nf{k.k esa Ldwy gSA fygktk vihykFkhZx.k izkFkfed rkSj ij ;g fLFkfr lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha jgs gSa fd Ldwy rFkk jsLiksMsUV ds edku ds e/; fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ xyh ;k jkLrk izn'kZ Mh&1 esa n'kkZ;s bZ ls lh] lh ls Mh , ls ch o Mh ls lh jkLrk ds vykok ekStwn gksA vkns'k vihy vihykFkhZx.k fo:) jsLiksMsUV [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fnukafdr 25-1-2014 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA lgh ¼ek/koh fnudj½ vfrfjDr ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ukxkSj (jkt0½^^ 4. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the learned courts below have erred in allowing the counter claim filed by the respondents/defendants without there being relief of declaration in the counter claim and, therefore, both the courts below have erred in rejecting plaintiffs' suit. He further submitted that the learned courts below have erred in not decreeing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs though the plaintiffs' easementary rights were confirmed by a competent civil court vide judgment dated 03.02.1996 and the same being a compromise decree in a suit for representative character, the same was binding on all the residents including the plaintiffs and defendants. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajat Dave, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that both the courts below after evaluating the evidence led by the parties has concurrently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, which calls for no interference in the present second appeal. He, therefore, submitted that no substantial questions of law arises in the present second appeal and same deserves dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the judgments and decree of the two courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the present second appeal deserves dismissal. Both the courts below after discussing the relevant evidence led by the parties have rightly and concurrently dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants. The present suit involved a different cause of action and earlier findings in the compromise decree dated 03.02.1996 were rightly held not binding the present parties to the suit. This Court does not find any ground to upset the judgments and decree passed by the two courts below. 7. Resultantly, the present second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs assailing the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith. Appeal dismissed.