Dismissed¶23

Smt. Munni Devi W/O Late Sh. Harishankar Mishra v. Smt. Sajjan Kanwar W/O Late Shri Rishal Singh

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2025CSA/471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed in default and for non-prosecution; repeated non-appearance of appellant; proxy counsel; cost deposit as condition precedent for restoration of appeal; disbursement of cost governed by High Court orders; underlying suit (2002) for permanent and mandatory injunction for removal of plants near boundary-wall fearing root damage and cracks; trial Court cost Rs.51,000/- reduced to Rs.21,000/- in first appeal; no evidence adduced by plaintiff; Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; Justice Sudesh Bansal; CSA-471/2024; [2025:RJ-JP:41721]; order dated 13/10/2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; second appeal dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, with restoration made conditional on deposit of cost; stay and pending applications disposed of. ¶23

Smt. Munni Devi W/O Late Sh. Harishankar Mishra Vs Smt. Sajjan Kanwar W/O Late Shri Rishal Singh — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; second appeal dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, with restoration made conditional on deposit of cost; stay and pending applications disposed of.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant would press the second appeal on merits, given her repeated non-appearance and non-deposit of cost.

¶15

Court's answer

The second appeal is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution: the appeal had been pending about a year, the appellant neither pursued it nor deposited the cost, and such conduct did not entitle her to further adjournment.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If the appellant wishes to restore the second appeal and argue it on merits, deposition of the cost before this High Court, in compliance of the order dated 23.08.2024, is a condition precedent; disbursement of the cost shall be governed by the order(s) passed by this Court in the appeal.

¶24

Key takeaways

Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 471/2024 (Sudesh Bansal, J.), order dated 13/10/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:41721]: Second appeal by Smt. Munni Devi against dismissal of her first appeal arising out of a civil suit filed in 2002 for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking removal of the neighbour's plants implanted near the boundary-wall, on apprehension that the roots may cause damage and cracks. The trial Court had dismissed the suit on 01.06.2018 with cost of Rs.51,000/-, no evidence having been adduced by the plaintiff; the first appellate Court dismissed the first appeal on 23.08.2024, reducing the cost to Rs.21,000/-. As the appellant failed to appear on 08.10.2025 and again on the order date (only a proxy counsel appearing once to seek instructions), and had neither pursued the appeal for about a year nor deposited the cost, the second appeal was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. Restoration of the appeal, if sought, was made subject to the condition precedent of depositing the cost before the High Court in compliance of the order dated 23.08.2024, disbursement to be governed by orders passed in the appeal; stay and pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:41721]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 471/2024

¶4

Smt. Munni Devi W/o Late Sh. Harishankar Mishra, R/o P. No. 4, Teachers Colony, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Shri Rishal Singh, R/o P. No. 3 C, (Presently Residing At Plot No. 3 B, Teachers Colony, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Rishal Singh S/o Unknown, R/o P. No. 3 C, (Presently Residing At Plot No. 3 B, Teachers Colony, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: None Present
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

13/10/2025

¶14

On 08.10.2025, no one appeared on behalf of appellant to argue and press this second appeal on merits, hence, in the interest of justice, the second appeal was adjourned for today.

¶15

Today in the first round, a proxy counsel appeared on behalf of appellant and prayed for pass over as also to seek instructions from the appellant, whether to press this second appeal on merits or not? But, when the matter has been taken up post-lunch, in second round, no one has appeared on behalf of appellant.

¶16

It appears from record that plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction wayback in the year 2002, seeking direction against his neighbor to remove the plants, implanted nearby to the boundary-wall, having an apprehension

[2025:RJ-JP:41721]

[CSA-471/2024]

(2 of 3)

that roots of the plants, may cause damage and create cracks in the boundary-wall.

¶21

It appears that no evidence was adduced from the side of plaintiff before the trial Court, and finally the suit was dismissed with cost of Rs.51,000/-, vide judgment dated 01.06.2018.

¶22

Thereagainst, plaintiff preferred first appeal. In the first appeal, plaintiff could not provide any justified reason, to allow him to adduce evidence, since the appellate Court has observed that ample opportunities to plaintiff, have already been given. However, the appellate Court, showing benevolence, reduced the cost from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.21,000/-, and dismissed the first appeal, vide judgment dated 23.08.2024. Whereagainst, present second appeal has been filed.

¶23

From the record, it appears that the second appeal is pending before the High Court since about one year and appellant did not pursue the same, nor has deposited the cost, such conduct of plaintiff does not allow her to avail further adjournment. Hence, the second appeal is hereby dismissed in default and for nonprosecution.

¶24

It is hereby observed that if appellant wishes to restore the second appeal, and to argue the same on merits, deposition of cost before this High Court, in compliance of order dated 23.08.2024, shall be a condition precedent and disbursement of cost shall be governed by the order(s) passed by this Court, in the appeal.

¶25