Rajasthan v. District Collector, Alwar Raj
Case Details
----Appellants/Plaintiffs
3. Versus District Collector, Alwar Raj District And Sessions Judge, Alwar Rajasthan Civil Judge J.D. And Judicial Magistrate, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar Rajasthan ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 05/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 14/2007 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), No.4, Alwar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 128/06 by which the plaintiffs’ suit has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the [2025:RJ-JP:29931] (2 of 4) [CSA-77/2018] defendants’) mentioning therein that Nadan Singh, who was husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 working as a Class IV Employee and missing since 24.04.1998. Since then, he did not join the duty. Therefore defendant Nos. 2 and 3 got published a notice/information in local newspaper “Arunprabha” on 03.12.1998. Plaintiffs also lodged a report on
22.06.1998 to the effect that Nadan Singh went to Bawal on
24.04.1998 but he did not reach to his house at Alwar on the next day. Since whereabouts of Nadan Singh were not known, as such presumption was drawn in respect of his death. So, it is clear that civil death of Nadan Singh took place and on account thereof, consequential service benefits be given to the plaintiffs. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated Nadan Singh was although working under the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar but was posted as a fourth class employee in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Behror and on an inquiry initiated against him under Rule 16 of The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1958, he was found guilty. Vide order dated 24.01.1998, he was suspended and ultimately he was dismissed from service vide order dated
13.10.2000. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- D;k uknku flag fn- 25-4-98 ls ykirk gS\ 2- D;k oknhx.k bl vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djokus ds vf/kdkjh gS fd xr lkr lky ls vf/kd le; ls yxkrkj ykirk gksus ds vk/kkj ij mldh e`R;w gks [2025:RJ-JP:29931] (3 of 4) [CSA-77/2018] x;h gS ,oa oknhx.k mlds dkuwuh okfjlku gS rFkk mldh lsok ds leLr ykHk ,oa ifjykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k uknku flag dks izkjafHkd tkap esa nks"kh ik;s tkus ij 24-1-98 fuyEcu fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk rRi’pkr M~;wVh ls fujarj vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k ukSdjh ls fu"dkflr dj fn;k x;k] vr% oknhx.k mldh lsok ckcr fdlh izdkj ds ykHk ifjykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 4- D;k oknhx.k us vketu dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS blfy, okn [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined as PW-1- Subhash Devi, PW-2 Pankaj Kumar, PW-3 Babulal, PW-4 Shravan Devi, PW-5 Vishnu Kumar and PW-6 Jagdish Prasad and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- B.B. Gupta. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree dated
20.01.2007 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court erred in not taking into consideration that the plaintiffs whereabouts of [2025:RJ-JP:29931] (4 of 4) [CSA-77/2018] Nadan Singh were not known to the plaintiffs for more than seven years. So, the courts below ought to have declared as civil dead. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the courts below failed to consider the aspect of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. Plaintiffs lodged a report for missing of Nadan Singh. There is no evidence that Nadan Singh was alive. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance for the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs failed to adduce any cogent evidence that Nadan Singh was not alive and they had not seen him for more than 7 years immediately preceding the date of filing the suit. In their cross-examination, the plaintiffs admitted that they filed the suit to get the benefits on account of death of Nadan Singh. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present civil second appeal deserves to be dismissed as no substantial question of law is made out. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Ritu/45 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
----Appellants/Plaintiffs
3. Versus District Collector, Alwar Raj District And Sessions Judge, Alwar Rajasthan Civil Judge J.D. And Judicial Magistrate, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar Rajasthan ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 05/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 14/2007 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), No.4, Alwar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 128/06 by which the plaintiffs’ suit has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the [2025:RJ-JP:29931] (2 of 4) [CSA-77/2018] defendants’) mentioning therein that Nadan Singh, who was husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 working as a Class IV Employee and missing since 24.04.1998. Since then, he did not join the duty. Therefore defendant Nos. 2 and 3 got published a notice/information in local newspaper “Arunprabha” on 03.12.1998. Plaintiffs also lodged a report on
22.06.1998 to the effect that Nadan Singh went to Bawal on
24.04.1998 but he did not reach to his house at Alwar on the next day. Since whereabouts of Nadan Singh were not known, as such presumption was drawn in respect of his death. So, it is clear that civil death of Nadan Singh took place and on account thereof, consequential service benefits be given to the plaintiffs. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated Nadan Singh was although working under the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar but was posted as a fourth class employee in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Behror and on an inquiry initiated against him under Rule 16 of The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1958, he was found guilty. Vide order dated 24.01.1998, he was suspended and ultimately he was dismissed from service vide order dated
13.10.2000. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- D;k uknku flag fn- 25-4-98 ls ykirk gS\ 2- D;k oknhx.k bl vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djokus ds vf/kdkjh gS fd xr lkr lky ls vf/kd le; ls yxkrkj ykirk gksus ds vk/kkj ij mldh e`R;w gks [2025:RJ-JP:29931] (3 of 4) [CSA-77/2018] x;h gS ,oa oknhx.k mlds dkuwuh okfjlku gS rFkk mldh lsok ds leLr ykHk ,oa ifjykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k uknku flag dks izkjafHkd tkap esa nks"kh ik;s tkus ij 24-1-98 fuyEcu fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk rRi’pkr M~;wVh ls fujarj vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k ukSdjh ls fu"dkflr dj fn;k x;k] vr% oknhx.k mldh lsok ckcr fdlh izdkj ds ykHk ifjykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 4- D;k oknhx.k us vketu dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS blfy, okn [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined as PW-1- Subhash Devi, PW-2 Pankaj Kumar, PW-3 Babulal, PW-4 Shravan Devi, PW-5 Vishnu Kumar and PW-6 Jagdish Prasad and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- B.B. Gupta. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree dated
20.01.2007 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court erred in not taking into consideration that the plaintiffs whereabouts of [2025:RJ-JP:29931] (4 of 4) [CSA-77/2018] Nadan Singh were not known to the plaintiffs for more than seven years. So, the courts below ought to have declared as civil dead. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the courts below failed to consider the aspect of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. Plaintiffs lodged a report for missing of Nadan Singh. There is no evidence that Nadan Singh was alive. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance for the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs failed to adduce any cogent evidence that Nadan Singh was not alive and they had not seen him for more than 7 years immediately preceding the date of filing the suit. In their cross-examination, the plaintiffs admitted that they filed the suit to get the benefits on account of death of Nadan Singh. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present civil second appeal deserves to be dismissed as no substantial question of law is made out. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Ritu/45 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J