- (1.) This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004 passed by District Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the first appellate court' hereinafter) in Appeal Decree No.30/04 whereby the appeal filed by plaintiff respondent Gordhan Dass came to be allowed and a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff respondent Gordhan Dass and against the appellant defendant Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner (for short 'the UIT' hereinafter) was passed. Hence this second appeal by the appellant defendant UIT.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the judgment and decree of the first appellate court as also the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), No.1, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Civil Original Suit No.3/04 whereby the suit filed by plaintiff respondent Gordhan Dass was partly decreed in respect of land bearing Khasra No.284/83.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that merely suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable unless a relief for declaration of title is sought. It is further contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit when the land for which the permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff respondent was subject matter of the acquisition under the provisions of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short "the Act of 1959" hereinafter). It was also contended that the suit as such was not maintainable in absence of the State being a party to the suit. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff respondent failed to implead the State as party respondent and therefore, the suit is not maintainable for want of necessary party.;