Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the appellant -defendant, challenging the judgment & decree dated 07.03.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Appeal No. 35/2012, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment & decree dated 18.5.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) West, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No. 232/2008.
(2.) THE respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant -defendant in respect of the suit shop alleging inter alia that the shops Nos. 5 & 6 belonging to the defendant were situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff's shop Nos. 7 & 8, and that there was a common wall between the said shops of the plaintiff's and the defendant's. It was further alleged that the defendant had illegally tried to occupy the said wall upto 5 inch and was trying to raise illegal construction over the said wall. The said suit was resisted by the appellant -defendant, denying the allegations made by the respondent -plaintiff and further contending inter alia that he was raising the construction of first floor on his own wall and not on the wall of the respondent -plaintiff. The trial court after framing the issues, decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff by restraining the appellant -defendant from raising any construction within 24 feet, east -west side of the shops belonging to the plaintiff, and further restraining the defendant from carrying out construction on western side outside the pillars constructed by him. Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree passed by the trial court, the appellant had preferred the appeal before the appellate court which has been dismissed by the appellate court. Though, it has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Lokesh Sharma for the appellant that both the courts below have mis -appreciated the evidence on record, and granted the permanent injunction in utter disregard of the settled position of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Hence the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.;