By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court without referring to any substantial question of law and even without companysidering the companytention of the appellant herein that the purported formulated questions are number substantial question of law, allowed the Second Appeal preferred by respondent No.1 stating A look at the material on record demonstrates that on receiving the companyplaints against the allotment of plots by the UIT,Enquiry Commission was appointed by the State Government.
The companytroversy between the parties relates to a plot measuring 24 ft.
The said suit, however, was dismissed by the learned trial Court opining that allotment in favour of plaintiff having been cancelled and he having number been in possession of the land in dispute, was number entitled to any decree.
Indisputably, Respondent No.2 claimed title over the land bearing Plot No.
874/1973 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City West , Jaipur for a decree for permanent injunction in respect of Plot No.
A 57 in its favour on the basis of allotment thereof in the year 1965 in favour of the vendee.
1 Aggrieved by and dis satisfied therewith, the respondent No.1 filed a Second Appeal before the High Court.
On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Commission the State Government cancelled the allotment of plot No.
By reason of an order dated 14.3.1985, the High Court formulated as many as nine substantial questions of law.
In the written statement filed by the UIT it was averred that since the allotment of plot No.
x 70 ft.
A 102 on the premise that on a portion thereof, respondent No.2 had started digging the foundation.
A/102 was cancelled therefore the plaintiff was number entitled to any relief.
He filed a Civil Suit No.
Leave granted.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst.
A/102.
Plaintiff in the suit is appellant before us.
