Dismissed

Bisambhari v. Kashmira Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2010CMPMO/258/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged civil judgments dismissing a suit for Rs. 3,305 regarding wall demolition damages. The Court held that under Sections 100 and 102 CPC, second appeals are barred for suits valued under Rs. 25,000 and these bars cannot be bypassed via Article 227 writ petitions. The petition was dismissed as there was no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' factual findings.

What did the court decide?

The CMPMO petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Bisambhari Vs Kashmira Devi — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No.258 of 2004 Date of decision: 9.12.2010

Smt.Bisambhari

…. Petitioner

Versus

Smt.Kashmira Devi & ors

¶7

….. Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No

¶10

For the petitioner: Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

¶12

Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)

¶13

This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur passed in Civil Appeal No.3/96 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge 1^st Class, Ghumarwin dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’).

¶14

Briefly stated the facts of the case are

¶15

that the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.3305/- on account of damage caused to her

¶16

¶17

because of the demolition of a wall. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had demolished her newly constructed wall which resulted in damage of Rs.3305/-. The defendants contested the suit and raised the plea that no construction had been made by the plaintiff but the plaintiff had tried to interfere in the possession of the defendants and all that the defendants had done was that they did not allow the plaintiff to raise construction over the land of the defendants.

¶18

The learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants had demolished the wall, house or cowshed of the plaintiff. This finding of fact has been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

¶19

Under Section 100, CPC, a second appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Section 102, CPC specifically provides that no second appeal is maintainable in a suit, value whereof is less than Rs.25,000/-. The provisions of Section 100 and 102, CPC cannot be circumvented by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An appeal is only the creation of the statute

¶20

¶21

and the legislature in its wisdom has decided that a second appeal will not lie in a suit valuation of which is less than 25000/-. There is no occasion to entertain a CMPMO unless it is shown that there is some illegality involved or there is some perversity in the finding of the learned Trial Court. In the present case, I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. I find that both the judgments are based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore do not call for any interference in this petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶22

December 9, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge

Bisambhari v. Kashmira Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bisambhari v. Kashmira Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kansh Raj Vs Gram Panchayat Pahloo

Hukam Dev Vs Chander Parkash

Saran Dass Vs State

Gehru Ram Vs State

H.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs United India Insurance Company

Ghanshayam Vs State