ORDER : G. S. Ahluwalia, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC r.w. Section 392 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act , 1956 has been filed against the order dated 4-8-2017 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in M.J.C. No. 400087/2013, by which an application filed by applicant under Section 307 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act has been rejected. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that applicant filed an application under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act on the ground that applicant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the residents of the same colony i.e. Sheikh Ki Bagia, Rassi Wali Mohalla, Lashkar, Gwalior. It was alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have constructed over the government land and that too without taking any building permission. Property in question was marked with red colour in the attached map and said property is the disputed property. When respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were raising construction, then applicant had also stopped them and had pleaded that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should not raise construction over the government land, but respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not agree and they continued with the construction. Thereafter, applicant gave an information to respondent No. 3, but since respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were influential persons, therefore respondent No. 3 did not take any action. Thus, an application under Section 307 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act was filed. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and admitted that applicant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the residents of the same colony. However, it was denied that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had encroached upon the government land. It was pleaded that the house in question was constructed by their father Babulal after obtaining building permission from the Municipal Corporation on 10-04-1975. In a special plea, it was pleaded that initially also, one suit was filed by applicant against respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which was registered as Case No. 186A/2009, which has been dismissed by the court of competent jurisdiction by order dated 30.7.2012, therefore, present application is barred by the principle of res judicata. 4. Respondent No. 3 also filed his reply and stated that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land, and accordingly, notices have been issued against them. 4. Respondent No. 3 also filed his reply and stated that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land, and accordingly, notices have been issued against them. It was denied that respondent No. 3, under the influence of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, is not intending to take any action. It was pleaded that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction without obtaining any building permission. 5. The trial court, by order dated 1-3-2013, framed issues. Issue No. 3 was with regard to the principle of res judicata. The trial court granted time to the parties to produce documents in support of Issue No. 3, which was to the effect as to whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. In spite of multiple opportunities, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any document to show that application in question is barred by res judicata, and accordingly, by order dated 2-5-2014, it was observed that no document has been filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and under these circumstances, the arguments on the question of res judicata cannot be heard, and it was observed that aforesaid issue shall be decided after the documents are filed, and the case was fixed for recording of applicant's evidence. Ultimately, by order dated 14-1-2015, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte as none had appeared on their behalf. Thereafter, applicant examined himself, and by order dated 7-1-2016, evidence of the applicant was closed, and the case was fixed for recording of evidence of defendants. Evidence of respondent No. 3 was also recorded and the case was fixed for final hearing. 6. On 3-5-2016, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Said application was rejected by order dated 17-6- 2016. By order dated 10-8-2016, the trial court rejected the application filed by applicant under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of application filed under Section 307(5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act , applicant preferred Civil Revision No. 125/2016. 8. It is not out of place to mention here that despite service of notice, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before this Court. Even SPC was also issued, but none appeared for respondents Nos. 8. It is not out of place to mention here that despite service of notice, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before this Court. Even SPC was also issued, but none appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 27-4-2017, and accordingly, the case was adjourned once, and ultimately, Civil Revision No. 125/2016 was decided by this Court by order dated 5-5-2017, by holding that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not produce any document to show that they are owners of the land over which the construction has been raised. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back with a direction to the trial court to call upon respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to establish that the construction, so raised, is on their own land, and with permission of competent authority. Accordingly, the trial court was directed to decide the issue by issuing notice to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Applicant and respondent No. 3 were directed to remain present before the trial court on 17-5-2017. 9. Thereafter, fresh notices were issued by the trial court to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In spite of service of notice, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before the trial court. However, by the impugned order, the trial court once again rejected the application filed under Section 307 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, only on the grounds that applicant as well as respondent No. 3 have failed to prove that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land. 10. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that the impugned order runs contrary to the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 125/2016, by which respondents No. 1 and 2 were given an opportunity to prove that construction raised by them is on their own land and subsequent to obtaining the building permission from the Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that even after remand of the case, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not enter appearance in spite of service of notice, therefore, in view of the specific pleadings raised by applicant that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land, the trial court should have directed respondent No. 3 to remove the illegal construction raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 1 and 2 did not enter appearance in spite of service of notice, therefore, in view of the specific pleadings raised by applicant that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land, the trial court should have directed respondent No. 3 to remove the illegal construction raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that once respondent No. 3 had admitted that the construction raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 is on the government land, then nothing more was required on the part of applicant to prove that the construction raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was not on their private land, but it was on the government land. It is further submitted that even respondent No. 3 had specifically stated that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not obtained any building permission from respondent No. 3. Thus, it is submitted that the court below committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act . 11. In spite of service of this civil revision, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared and thus, they are proceeded ex parte 12. Supporting the contentions of counsel for applicant, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No. 3 that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land and that too without obtaining building permission, and therefore, their construction is liable to be removed. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. As already pointed out, when respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were called upon to file the documents to show that present application is barred by principle of res judicata, then they did not file any document. When the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the parties, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte and they did not appear. After the evidence of applicant as well as respondent No. 3 was over, it appears that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which was rejected. It appears that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 never challenged the order by which their application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was rejected. 15. After the rejection of application filed under Section 307 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act, applicant had preferred Civil Revision No. 125/2016. It appears that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 never challenged the order by which their application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was rejected. 15. After the rejection of application filed under Section 307 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act, applicant had preferred Civil Revision No. 125/2016. In the said civil revision also, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear. Civil Revision No. 125/2016 was allowed and matter was remanded back to the trial court so that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may file the documents to show that the construction raised by them is on their private land and after due permission. In spite of service of notice, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before the trial court even after remand. However, the trial court rejected the application filed under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act by holding that the burden was on the applicant as well as on respondent No. 3 to show that the construction raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is not on their private land and has been raised without any building permission. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasoning assigned by the trial court in its impugned order runs contrary to what was held by this Court in Civil Revision No. 125/2016. It appears that the trial court has decided the application filed under Section 307 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act without taking the pains of going through the directions given by this Court in Civil Revision No. 125/2016. 17. The applicant had specifically stated that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction over the government land and that too without any building permission. The said fact was duly admitted by respondent No. 3. Although respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in their written statement, had claimed that the construction is not on government land and it was raised by their father after taking due permission from respondent No. 3, but thereafter, in spite of multiple opportunities by the trial court as well as by the High Court at different stages, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 decided not to file any document of their title or building permission and even they decided not to appear before the court to defend themselves. 18. Respondent No. 3 has specifically stated that the construction raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is without building permission. 1 and 2 decided not to file any document of their title or building permission and even they decided not to appear before the court to defend themselves. 18. Respondent No. 3 has specifically stated that the construction raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is without building permission. If respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had not taken any building permission, then nothing more was required on the part of respondent No. 3. Their mere statement that the construction has been raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 without obtaining building permission was sufficient to draw an inference that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised construction without any building permission. It was obligatory on the part of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to prove that the construction which has been raised by them is after obtaining due building permission, and in spite of multiple opportunities, they have miserably failed to substantiate their contention that the construction was raised after obtaining due building permission. Even respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to place any document on record to show that the construction, which has been raised by them, is on their own private land. At the cost of repetition, it is once again held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have miserably failed in establishing their title over the land in question in spite of multiple opportunities given by the trial court as well as by this Court. 19. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to hold that the construction which has been raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which is marked with red colour in the map attached along with the application, is on the government land and not on their private land, and the said construction has been raised without obtaining any permission from respondent No. 3. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4-8-2017 passed by the trial court in M.J.C. No. 400087/2013 is hereby set aside. The application filed by applicant under Section 307 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act is hereby allowed. 21. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to immediately remove their illegal construction over the government land within a period of one month from today, failing which respondent No. 3 shall remove the construction. 22. With the aforesaid observations, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.