Dismissed

Hariram and Ors. v. Udairaj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2022CSA/18/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC filed by plaintiffs in a permanent injunction suit. The court held that concurrent factual findings by two lower courts preclude reappreciation of evidence and that no substantial question of law arises.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed. The record of both Courts below is to be sent back forthwith.

Hariram and Ors. Vs Udairaj and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 18/2017

¶3

Hariram S/o Tillu, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶4

Mohar Singh S/o Tillu, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶5

Hariman S/o Tillu, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶6

Bharosi S/o Tillu, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶7

Dhanna S/o Tillu, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶8

Gyan Singh S/o Tillu, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Udairaj S/o Mishriya, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶12

Bhan S/o Mishriya, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶13

Shibbi S/o Mishriya, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶14

Devi S/o Mishriya, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶15

Charan S/o Mishriya, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶16

Harbhajan S/o Shankar, R/o Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hardev Puri Goswami For Respondent(s) :

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶20

Order

¶21

11/07/2022

¶22

Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hindaun City, Karauli in Civil Regular Appeal No.13/12, affirming the judgment

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

[CSA-18/2017]

¶25

and decree dated 20.08.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hindaun City, Karauli in Civil Suit No.111/1997 whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by appellants has been dismissed on merits.

¶26

On perusal of impugned judgments and record, it appears that after filing of present suit for permanent injunction, plaintiffs have instituted another civil suit No.127/1997 for restoration of possession. 3. Both Courts, on appreciation of evidence on record have concurrently held that plaintiffs are not in possession, however has observed that once plaintiffs have already instituted a civil suit for restoration of possession, no relief in the present suit for permanent injunction is possible to be passed. The aforesaid factual aspect of filing the civil suit for restoration of possession subsequent to institution of present suit for permanent injunction has not been disputed.

¶27

This Court find that no substantial question of law in that backdrop of facts arise in this second appeal arises and no interference is required to be made out in the fact findings recorded by the Court below. 5. The findings recorded by two Courts below are findings of fact and do not give rise to formulation of any substantial question of law. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of law, the second appeal cannot be entertained for exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellantplaintiff are essentially questions of fact, which requires reappreciation of evidence. Reappreciation of evidence is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings. None of the question of law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of concurrent findings of facts, which even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in exercise of powers

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CSA-18/2017]

¶30

under Section 100 CPC as has been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434], State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595] and C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be entertained.

¶31

Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶32

Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

Record of both Courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

NITIN /1

Hariram and Ors. v. Udairaj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram and Ors. v. Udairaj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Lal Agarwal Vs the Municipal Board

Ghanshyam Dani S/O Late Sh. Mohan Lal Vs Government of Rajasthan

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar Vs Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bansidhar

Gajraj Singh Vs Govind Singh and Anr.

Gajraj Singh Vs Givind Singh and Anr.

Ravish Babu Vs Dwarka Prasad