JUDGMENT : Harsh Kumar, J. List revised. No one is present for respondent. 2. The instant appeal has been filed against impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.1990 passed in Civil Appeal No.86 of 1990 "State of U.P. Vs. Shri Pooran Chandra and another". 3. Heard Sri Sudhir Solanki, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-State of U.P. and perused the record. 4. The brief facts relating to the instant appeal are that plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed Civil Suit No.938 of 1987 for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction against appellant which was decreed by trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.1990. Against the judgment and decree passed by trial court, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.86 of 1990 before the District Judge, Agra which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.1990. 5. The plaintiff's case in brief is that a piece of land was leased out to him by Railways/Union of India (which was impleaded as defendant no.2 but did not contest and has been impleaded as respondent no.2) over which he raised boundary wall and affixed a gate but the employees of the appellant harassed him and used to put drums, bricks and woods over his gate to obstruct his passage and also raised a wall during pendency of suit to obstruct his Rasta. Learned trial court in its findings on issue nos.1,4 & 5 held that property leased to plaintiff is part of land/plot no.289 and not of plot no.316 of appellant. The appellate court in the impugned judgment and decree has clearly observed that from the report of Commissioner 16-C it is clearly evident that there is no other way available to the plaintiff for approaching to and fro the land leased out to him by Railways respondent no.2 and since plot no.316 is alleged to be PWD road so the plaintiff-respondent has every right of egress and ingress from the gate of his property. 6. Learned counsel for appellant challenging the findings of two courts below contended that plaintiff-respondent has raised constructions over the land leased to him by Railways and has put a gate; that he has no right to open the gate towards the land of defendant-appellant and has no right to encroach over the land of defendant-appellant by raising constructions or otherwise. 7. 7. From perusal of record, I find that there is no case of defendant-appellant that plaintiff-respondent has raised any constructions over the land of defendant or has encroached over it in any manner. Since the plaintiff has no other way to and fro his land, he cannot be stopped from using the land leased out to him and there appears no illegality in the judgments and decree passed by two courts below. 8. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the judgments of two courts below are wrong on facts and law and as many as 10 substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal as mentioned in page 5 & 6 of the memo of appeal. He pointed out that suit was also barred by provisions of Section 80 of C.P.C. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for appellant and perusal of record, I find that Section 80(2) provides of exemption by Legislature from service of notice under Section 80(1) in cases to obtain an urgent and immediate relief where due to urgency purpose of suit will frustrate in serving the notice. In this case the only Rasta of plaintiff was allegedly obstructed by defendant-appellant so in such case the service of notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. was not mandatory under law as also pleaded by plaintiff. The findings of two courts below are concurrent findings of fact based on cogent reasonings and no illegality or perversity in above findings could be pointed out by learned counsel for appellant. 10. In view of discussions made above, I find that appeal is devoid of merits and for want of any substantial question of law is liable to be dismissed in limine. 11. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order.