Dismissed

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through v. Rajkumar

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2019CSA/37/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the appellant challenged the lower courts' finding on the value of a deceased buffalo. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC regarding the specific cost figure mentioned in the post-mortem report and thus dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree are upheld.

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through Vs Rajkumar — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 37/2019

¶3

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Through,

¶4

1.The Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur, Near Power House, Jodhpur.

¶5

The Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Churu

¶6

3.The Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Rural), Sadulpur, District Churu.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Rajkumar S/o Shri Dularam, B/c Jat, R/o Gagadwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Judgment

¶14

18/11/2019

¶15

The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and upheld the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajgarh whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that although in the post-mortem report, Dr. Sumer Singh AW-3 who is working

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CSA-37/2019]

¶20

as Veterinary Doctor at Rajgarh has mentioned the cost of the dead Buffalo to be Rs.1-1.5 lakh (Rupees One Lakh to One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only), however, the learned trial court has wrongly taken into consideration the cost to be Rs.1.5 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). The finding arrived at by the learned trial court has wrongly been affirmed by the learned appellate Court considering the cost of the buffalo to be Rs.1.5 lakh(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) whereas Dr. Sumer Singh AW-3 in his statement has mentioned the cost of buffalo to be Rs.1-1.5 lakh(Rupees One Lakh to One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only).

¶21

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and the finding arrived at by the learned appellate Court which reads as under:-

¶22

“10vc tgka rd oknh dh HkSal dh dher dk iz’u gS] bl laca/k esa HkSal dk iksLVekVZe djus okyk lk{kh ihMCyw 3 MkŒ lqesjflag ,d fu"i{k vkSj fo’oluh; xokg gS ftlus viuh fo’ks"kKrk ds vk/kkj ij iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn’kZ 2 esa HkSal dh dher 1]50]000 :i;s gksuk vafdr fd;k gS blfy, oknh lk{; ls izfroknhx.k ds mis{kkiw.kZ vid`R; ls oknh dks 1]50]000 :i;s dh {kfr gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gSA vr% oknh viuh lk{; ls fook|d la[;k 1 yxk;r 3 dks vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa lQy gqvk gS blfy, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mDr rhuksa fook|dksa dk fu.kZ; oknh ds i{k esa fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr ,oa fof/k lEer gS ftldh iqf"V vihy esa djrs gq, mDr fook|dksa dk fu.kZ; vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) o izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶23

Since AW-3 Dr. Sumer Singh has mentioned in the post mortem report the approximate cost of buffalo to be Rs.1-1.5 lakh(Rupees One Lakh to One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and in his statement also, he has specifically stated that the cost of the buffalo is approximately Rs.1.5 lakhs(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only).

¶24

Hence, it cannot be said that AW-3 estimated the cost of buffalo to be Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees: One Lakh Only) and learned

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CSA-37/2019]

¶27

Court’s below erred while computing the cost of buffalo to be Rs.1.5 Lakhs (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only).

¶28

Therefore, there is absolutely no illegality in the orders passed by the learned courts below much less there is no question of law which arises in the present second appeal. As per Section 100 CPC a second appeal can be maintainable only on the substantial question of law. There being none in the present case and therefore, the present second appeal has no force.

¶29

In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not find any substance in the present second appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶30

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶31

56-praveen/-

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through v. Rajkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through v. Rajkumar

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

Smt. Sohan Kanwar and Ors. Vs Laxmichand

Ramjas and Ors. Vs Lal Chand and Ors.

Smt. Geeta and Ors. Vs Shri Chunni Lal and Anr.

Dhani Devi Vs Bharat Kumar

Kishan Gopal Vs Vijay Sharma

Mangilal Soni Vs Suresh Chandra Swarnkar