S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.

- /2011 1
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTION NO.- /2011

IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011

CROSS OBJECTOR-APPLICANT:
Anant Sukharamji Trust, Shri Ramdham Chowki, Birai,
District Jodhpur, thorough attorney Holder Kripa Ram son of
Jankilal Ji Bhootra, aged about years, resident of
Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda, District-Bhilwara.

APPELLANTS:
1. Municipal Council, Gulabpura through Executive
Officer, Municipal Council, Gulabpura, District-
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
2. Municipal Council, Gulabpura through Chairman,
Municipal Council, Gulabpura, District-Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
……Defendants

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS:
1. Anant Sukharamji Trust, Shri Ramdham Chowki, Birai,
District Jodhpur, thorough attorney Holder Kripa Ram
son of Jankilal Ji Bhootra, resident of Gulabpura, Tehsil-
Hurda, District-Bhilwara.

2. Dinesh son of Shri Devkinandan Sharma, Age Major,

resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda,
District-Bhilwara.

3. Shri Ganga Bishan son of Nathulal Jethlia, Age Major,

resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda,
District-Bhilwara.
 S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.- /2011 2
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

4. Shri Amitabh Goyal son of Shri Gyan Prakash Goyal,

Age Major, resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-
Hurda, District-Bhilwara.

5. Sunil son of Shri Mohan Lal Kumawat, Age Major,

resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda,
District-Bhilwara.

6. Chagan Lal son of Shri Mohan Lal Kumawat, Age Major,

resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda,
District-Bhilwara.

7. Ramswaroop son of Shri Rooplal Sharma, Age Major,

resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda,
District-Bhilwara.

8. Vishnu Dutt son of Shri Chandlal Dadhich, Age Major,

resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda,
District-Bhilwara.

9. Dinesh Chandra Jajoo son of Shri Ramswaroop Jajoo,

aged about 45 years, resident of New Colony,
Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda, District-Bhilwara.

10. Mst. Choti Devi wife of Raju Ramdeo Berwa, aged 52

years, resident of New Colony, Gulabpura, Tehsil-
Hurda, District-Bhilwara.

11. Surendra Singh son of Shri Bhanwar Singh Pipara,

aged about 44 years, resident of New Colony,
Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda, District-Bhilwara.

12. Parasaram son of Chunnilal Bhootra, aged about 51

years, resident of Gulabpura, Tehsil-Hurda, District-
Bhilwara.
…….Plaintiffs
 S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.- /2011 3
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTION UNDER

ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 30.07.2010, PASSED BY SHRI
PHOOL CHAND JANJARIA, RHJS, LEARNED
ADDITIOANL DISTRICT JUDGE,
GULABPURA, DISTRICT-BHILWARA, IN
CIVIL REGULAR SUIT NO. 11/2004,
WHEREBY THE SUIT FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS FOR DECLARATORY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION HAS BEEN
PARTLY DEECREED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PLAINTIFFS.
***
VALUATION OF THE APPEAL : Rs. 50,200/-
(as in suit)
COURT FEES : Rs. 20/- (Fixed)

To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other
companion Judges of the Rajasthan High
Court at Jodhpur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

On behalf of the cross-objector, the present cross-
objection is being submitted against the joint decision upon
the issues No. 1 to 9 & 11 as suit is partly rejected
regarding 35 fts. wide road at point E as under:-

1. That the learned trial court has committed serious

error of law as well as facts while deciding all the
issues jointly, which has vitiated the complete
adjudication and same is resulted into illegal and
perverse rejection of claim made by the public at large
against the defendants. The deciding of issues jointly
 S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.- /2011 4
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

has resulted into overlapping and interpolation of

evidence in an unsustainable and unwarranted
manner, which is not sustainable in the eye of law,
therefore, same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. With due respect, it is submitted that the learned trial

court has disbelieve the un-rebutted documentary
evidence and misconstrued as well as misinterpreted
the documents filed by the cross objector and filed by
public at large, more specifically exhibits-2 & 3 and
further exhibits-11 to 16 have been disbelieved
without considering them in their true perspective in
an arbitrary manner, if these documents ought to be
considered then it is clearly established that 35 fts.
wide road is situated at the site in question.

3. That the learned trial court has committed serious

illegality and manifest perversity while rejecting the
claim of the public at large on the 35 fts. wide road.
The public use and common public purpose is required
to be given more preference and the oral evidence
lead in the present matter clearly establishes the 35
fts. wide public road is situated over the site in
question, which is a part of lawful scheme. It is ex-
facie established on record that 35 fts. wide road is in
existence, which is used by public at large, use and
occupation can only be decided on the basis of oral
evidence and in the present matter, the oral evidence
is supported by the documentary evidence, therefore,
the approach of the learned trial court is erroneous
and perverse, while disbelieving the oral evidence by
misinterpretation of the documents and misinterpreted
the legal position, which is not sustainable in the eye
 S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.- /2011 5
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

of law and same deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

4. With due respect, it is submitted that that the learned

trial court based its finding regarding disbelieving 35
fts. wide road over the site in question and based its
judgment and decree on the assumption, conjunctures
and surmises as the learned trial court has found that
no inconvenience or infringement of civil rights are
found, but it is contrary to law, whereas on the basis of
the evidence available on record, it is clearly
establishes that the land in question is 35 fts. wide
road. Although not admitted, but same scheme is
accepted and even if for the sake of arguments, the
conclusion of the learned trial court is considered to be
correct, then also the land in question is open space
and conveniently available to the residents for use as
road and under the scheme same was left for the road,
then it is required to be declared as road in public at
interest on the basis of use, occupation and scheme,
but same was not held by the learned trial court,
therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is not
sustainable to be the above extended.

5. That the learned trial court has committed serious

error of law as well as facts while discouraging the
master plan and the maps and other relevant
documents produced showing that 35 fts. wide road is
existing. If the 35 fts. wide road is available on the
map and scheme plan prepared in the year 1984, then
there is no rhyme, reason or authority available to the
respondent authorities to change use the road for
other purposes use and occupation and in the present
 S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.- /2011 6
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

matter, it was used by the police station on the

instance of Municipality in an unauthorized manner.
The impugned judgment and decree lacks the
aforesaid legal discussion on the present matter,
therefore, the impugned judgment and decree not
sustainable up to the above extended and same is
liable to be quashed as set aside and suit deserves to
be allowed in toto as prayed, consequence, thereof the
appellant may be directed to remove the
encroachment from the disputed way.

6. The cross-objector craves to submit other grounds at

the time of hearing.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that this cross-objection of the

cross-objector may kindly be allowed and the Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate judgment,
order or direction in favour of cross-objector and the
impugned judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010, passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District-
Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.-11/2004 may kindly be
quashed and set aside up to the extend by which the
learned trial court has rejected the claim to declare 35 fts.
wide space as road.
Any other order or direction as deemed just and proper
by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the
case may also kindly be passed in favour of the cross-
objector.

COUNSEL FOR THE CROSS-OBJECTOR

 S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.- /2011 7
IN
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.-305/2011
(Anant Sukhram Ji Trust versus Municipal Council, Gulabpura & Anr.)

NOTES:
1. That no such cross-objection has been filed previously by
the cross-objector in this matter.
2. PF and Notices will be submitted within prescribed period.
3. This cross-objection has been typed in my office by my
Private Steno.
4. As pie papers are not available, hence typed on Stout
Papers.
5. I certify that such titling of top pages, internal & external
pagination has been done in all the sets of pleadings to
filed in court or copy to be given opposite counsel.
6. email id-sajjansingh2011@gmail.com

COUNSEL FOR THE CROSS-OBJECTOR