JUDGMENT 1. - This Second Appeal filed by the defendant No. 1-Mining Engineer is arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District-Bhilwara in Civil Regular Appeal No. 8/2008 "Madan Singh v. Mining Engineer & Ors. " who allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-Madan Singh and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 22.5.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura, Bhilwara in Civil Case No. 79/2002 "Madan Singh Choudhary v. Mining Engineer & Ors. " by which, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant No. 1 in relation to the dispute of certain mining dues admittedly due against his wife, the defendant No. 3, Smt. Kamla Choudhary. 2. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State Mining Department, who was one of the defendants before the learned two Courts below, against reversal of the findings of the learned Trial Court by the learned First Appellate Court in relation to the dispute, as aforesaid. 3. After framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement and after recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court, by its Judgment and Decree dated 22.5.2008, found that when the plaintiff and his wife were living together, the plaintiff is equally liable to the pay the dues of his wife towards the Mining Department through attachment of the house in question which is sought to be put to auction by the Mining Department. 4. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree aforesaid dated 22.5.2008, the plaintiff-Madan Singh Choudhary filed the First Appeal before the First Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District-Bhilwara, namely. Civil Regular Appeal No. 8/2008 "Madan Singh Choudhary v. Mining Engineer & Ors." which was allowed on 19.7.2010 , while setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.5.2008 of the learned Trial Court. 5. Civil Regular Appeal No. 8/2008 "Madan Singh Choudhary v. Mining Engineer & Ors." which was allowed on 19.7.2010 , while setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.5.2008 of the learned Trial Court. 5. The Mining Department of the State Government has filed the present Second Appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the plaintiffs Appeal No. 8/2008 "Madan Singh v. Mining Engineer & Ors." on 19.7.2010 holding that the husband, i.e., the plaintiff-Madan Singh Choudhary, is not liable to square up the dues of the Mining Department in respect of the plaintiffs wife proprietorship concern with respect to mining lease given in her favour. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court,. that the Mining Department is not entitled to recover the dues of wife (Smt. Kamla Choudhary) from the self-acquired property, i.e. house of the husband (Madan Singh Choudhary) by putting the same into attachment and auction and, therefore, for this reason, the Mining Department could not attach the house in question, which is the self-acquired property of the husband for realising the dues of the wife (Smt. Kamla Choudhary). The witness appeared before the learned Trial Court on behalf of the Mining Department namely, DW-1 Narendra Singh Shaktawat Stated before the Court, that the dues under the Mining Law are against the defendant No. 3-Smt. Kamla Choudhary and there were no dues against the plaintiff-Madan Singh Choudhary. The witness also stated that there were no documents available with the Mining Department in respect of the suit property that the same is in the same of defendant No. 3 Smt. Kamla Choudhary. 6. The witness also stated that there were no documents available with the Mining Department in respect of the suit property that the same is in the same of defendant No. 3 Smt. Kamla Choudhary. 6. It is noticed that the learned Trial Court, however, had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Madan Singh Choudhary seeking permanent injunction against the Mining Department not to put his self-acquired house into auction for recovery of the dues of the Mining Department admitted due against his wife Smt. Kamla Choudhary but the learned First Appellate Court had accepted the Appeal of die plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the following manner 8- i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ij eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh vius fu.kZ; esa oknxzLr edku dks vihykFkhZ&oknh ds LokfeRo ,oa dCts dk gksuk lkfcr ekuk gS vkSj ;g lk{; o vfHkys[k ls iw.kZr;k fof/k laxr ,oa U;k;ksfpr fu"d"kZ gS ysfdu fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ&oknh ds okn dks [kkfjt djus ds fy, eq[; :i ls nks dkj.k crk, gSa ftuesa ls igyk ;g gS fd iRuh ds cdk;k jkf'k ds fy, Hkqxrku djus gsrq ifr ftEesnkj gS vkSj nwljk ;g gS fd [kfut foHkk us tks dqdhZ o uhykeh vkfn dh dk;Zokgh oknh ds edku ckcr~ dh gS] mls voS/k ?kksf"kr djkus dk oknh us tks vuqrks"k ugha ekaxk blfy, LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh ugha dh tk ldrhA eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr fu"d"kZ fof/k laxr ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha dgs tk ldrsA iRuh dh cdk;k jkf'k vnk djus dk ifr dk uSfrd nkf;Ro rks gks ldrk gS ysfdu fof/kd nkf;Ro ugha gSA iRuh dh cdk;k jkf'k dks ifr dh LovftZr lEifRr dks uhyke dj jkf'k olwyus dk fdlh dks fof/kd vf/kdkj gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA 9- i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa vfHkys[k ls ;g i;kZIr :i ls lkfcr gS fd [kfut foHkkx deyk pkS/kjh ds fo:) viuh cdk;k jkf'k gksuk dFku djrs gq, mlds ifr enuflag dh LovftZr lEifRr edku dks cspuk pkgrk gSA blds fo:) enuflag tks oknxzLr edku dk ekfyd o dkfct gksuk lkfcr ik;k x;k gS] og [kfut foHkkx }kjk ,slk ugha fd, tkus ds fy;s mUgsa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djus gsrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k okn ysdj vk;kA eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd ,d ekfyd ,oa dkfct O;fDr dks vius lEifRr ds ckjs esa fdlh izdkj dh ?kks"k.kk dk nkok LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds vuqrks"k ds fy, izLrqr djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% [kfut foHkkx dk vihykFkhZ&oknh enuflag dh LovftZr lEifRr dks u rks dqdZ djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk vkSj u gh uhyke djus dk vf/kdkj gS fQj Hkh mlus fof/k fo:) ,slk dk;Z djds enuflag ds LovftZr edku dks uhyke djus ij vkeknk gS] ftls jksds tkus gsrq oknh dk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn Lohdkj fd, tkus ds vykok vkSj dksbZ fodYi ugha gSA 10- eSa ;gka Hkh mYys[k djuk mfpr ikrk gwa fd vihykFkhZ&oknh enuflag dks vius LokfeRo ds edku esa dkfct jgrs gq, vuko';d :i ls gh mls [kfut foHkkx }kjk dh x;h xyrh ds fy, mUgsa ikcUn djokus gsrq vius v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k okn izLrqr djuk iM+k vkSj ogka mldk okn [kkfjt dj fn, tkus ij vihy izLrqr djuh iM+hA blesa mldk le; o /ku dk O;; vuko';d :i ls gh gqvk gS] ftlds fy, [kfut foHkkx mRrjnk;h gSA vr% vihykFkhZ&oknh dh vihy fo'ks"k gtsZ ds lkFk Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk mlds }kjk izLrqr okn Hkh fMdzh fd, tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA vkns'k vihykFkhZ&oknh dh vihy fo:) izR;kFkhZ izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( o0[k0 ) xqykciqjk }kjk ewy okn la[;k 79@02 enuflag cuke [kfut vfHk;ark oxSjg us ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 22-5-2008 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izR;Fkh&izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os izR;FkhZ&izfroknh la[;k 3 Jherh deyk pkS/kjh ds fo:) dfFkr cdk;k jkf'k dh olwyh ds fy, vihykFkhZ&oknh dk LovftZr edku tks mlus Jherh lq'khyk dqekjh iRuh jruyky tSu ds tfj, jftLVMZ fodz;&i= izn'kZ 4 [kjhn dj ml ij edku cuk;k gS mls uhyke o cspku ugha djsA vihykFkhZ&oknh dks vuko';d :i ls izR;FkhZ&izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds dkj.k nks U;k;ky;ksa esa dze'k% okn o vihy izLrqr dj vuko';d /ku o le; O;; djuk iM+k ftlds fy, izR;FkhZ&izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os rhu ekg ds Hkhrj vihykFkhZ&oknh dks 10]000@& :i;s fo'ks"k gtkZ ds :i esa vnk djs vkSj ftl vf/kdkjh dh xyrh ds dkj.k ,slk gqvk ;g jkf'k ml vf/kdkjh ds osru ls olwy dh tkosA fMdzh ipkZ i`Fkd ls rS;kj fd;k tkosA bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfrfyfi ds lkFk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh 'kh?kz ykSVkbZ tkosA sd/- ( QwypUn >k>fM;k ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k xqykciqjk ( HkhyokM+k ) " 7. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties an4 upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court below, this Court in satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present Second Appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No. 1-Mining Engineer. In the circumstances of the case, the findings of facts and conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court below, that the husband is not under an legal obligation to square up the mining dues of the wife against the Min" Department, irrespective of the fact whether they were living jointly or separate cannot be said to be perverse, in any manner, and the said order does not go to rise to any substantial question of law in this Second Appeal and this Second Appeal of the appellants-defendant No. 1-Mining Engineer deserves to dismissed being devoid of any merit. No such substantial question of law could said to be arise merely because the learned First Appellate Court had impose costs of Rs. 10,000 Rs. on the erring official of the Mining Department for giving such notice of attachment to the plaintiff-Madan Singh Choudhary to pay outstanding dues of his wife and for attaching the self-acquired house of plaintiff. The findings of facts arrived by the First Appellate Court below are on relevant and cogent evidence led by the parties before the Courts below. Court finds no force in the present Second Appeal of the defendant No. 1-Mining Engineer. 8. Accordingly, the present Second Appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No. 1-Mining Engineer is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal Dismissed. *******