The Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that there was no substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts which rejected the plaintiff's suit for money based on a bond and promissory note.
None.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:37947]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 358/2024
Kishangopal Son Of Shri Satyanarayan/ramnarayan, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Gram Gulabpura, Tehsil Anta ,district Baran Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
Modulal Son Of Chitarlal, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Gram Amalsara, Tehsil Anta, District Baran Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : fe-'kkjnk xqtZj For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order
06-09-2024
1- vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vksj ls ;g flfoy f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk&100 lh-ih-lh- U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] ckjka] ftyk ckjka] jktLFkku ¼ftls bl fu.kZ; esa vkxs vihyh; U;k;ky; lacksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 16@2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 30-04-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSa ftlds }kjk vihyh; U;k;ky; us U;k;ky; vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼ofj"B [k.M½ ckjka] ftyk ckjka jktLFkku ¼ftls bl fu.kZ; esa vkxs fopkj.k U;k;ky; lacksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&38@2011 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 17-04-2013] ftlds }kjk oknh dk okn ckcr olwyh fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk] dh iqf"V djrs gq, vihykFkhZ dh vihy fujLr dh gSA lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls bl vihy esa vkxs vihykFkhZ dks oknh o izR;FkhZ dks izfroknh ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxkA
2- izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj of.kZr fd, tk ldrs gSa oknh }kjk okn i= izLrqr dj fnukad 25-05-2007 dks izfroknh dks ?kjsyw
[2024:RJ-JP:37947]
[CSA-358/2024]
(2 of 5)
vko';drk gsrq 25000@&:i;s 2 izfr'kr izfrekg C;kt nj ij m/kkj nsuk o bl laca/k esa xokgksa ds le{k izksestjh uksV fu"ikfnr fd;k tkuk crkrs gq, nkok nk;jh rd 42850@&:i;s e; C;kt izfroknh ls fnyok;s tkus o rkolwyh jde izfroknh ls 24 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt fnyok;s tkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k A
3- okni= dk fojks/k djrs gq, izfroknh }kjk tokcnkok izLrqr dj oknh ls dksbZ iSlk m/kkj ugha fy;k tkuk o bl laca/k esa dksbZ izksestjh uksV fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k tkuk vfHkfyf[kr djrs gq, oknh dk okn de U;k;'kqYd ij izLrqr gksus o U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa ugha gksus] jaft'ko'k >waBk eqdnek ntZ djk;s tkus o oknh ds ikl euhySf.Max dk ykbZlsal ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij fujLr djus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ A
4- ^^fopkj.k U;k;ky;^^ us vko';d fook+|d fojfpr djus ds ckn nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ys[kc) dh o mlds ckn nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj vius fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 17-04-2013 }kjk oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknh fujLr fd;k x;k ftlds fo:) oknh }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ izFke vihy dks ^^vihyh; U;k;ky;^^ }kjk vius fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 30-04-2024 }kjk fujLr djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh xbZ ftlds fo:) ;g f}rh; vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gS A
5- vihy ij cgl djrs gq, ;ksX; vf/koDrk oknh@vihykFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknh ds fo:) ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMfdz;ka i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds foijhr o izfrdwy gSa A nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu ugha fd;k gS o egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt fd;k gS A mudk rdZ gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fookfnr izksestjh uksV ds nwljs Hkkx dk fjdksMZ miyC/k ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; dks ,d rjQk :i ls izfroknh ds i{k esa i<+k x;k gS] tcfd izksestjh uksV dh dkmUVj QkbZy nkos ds lkFk is'k ugha dh tkrh gS rFkk mDr dkmUVj QkbZy dks ftjg ds nkSjku is'k djus gsrq u rks U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fn;k x;k vkSj uk gh izfroknh }kjk dksbZ uksfVl oknh dks fn;k x;k A izksestjh uksV ij izfroknh us vius gLrk{kj gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gS ijUrq mDr
[2024:RJ-JP:37947]
[CSA-358/2024]
(3 of 5)
gLrk{kjksa dk feyku izfroknh ds Lohdr gLrk{kj tks fd odkyrukek o tokcnkok ij miyC/k Fks] ls ugha djk;k x;k gS A nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fo'ys"k.k ,drjQk gS ftuds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh ikfjr dj nksuks gh U;k;ky;ksa us =qfV dkfjr dh gSA vr% ;g vihy] vihy Kkiu esa mBk, x, fof/k ds lkjHkwr iz'uksa ij fopkjkFkZ xzg.k dh tkos A 6- geusa ;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ }kjk j[ks x, rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k o miyC/k vfHkys[k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A gLrxr f}rh; flfoy vihy dh xzkg~;rk ds izdze ij ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gksrk gS fd D;k bl f}rh; flfoy vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrfuZfgr gS vFkok ugha \ 7- vfHkys[k ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fook|d la[;k&1] 2 o 3 dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk A oknh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd oknh us izfroknh dks 25000@&:i;s _.k dh vnk;xh dh gks rFkk blds laca/k esa izksestjh uksV izn'kZ&1 izfroknh }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gks A vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh vihy esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds mDr fu"d"kksZ dh laiqf"V djrs gq, oknh dh vihy fujLr dh gS A 8- nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us oknh dk okn fujLr djus ds laca/k esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohdfr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA oknh dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ gaS blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gS A bl laca/k esa AIR 2008SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus ArigelaLaxmi and Ors. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"13.The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below.But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:37947]
[CSA-358/2024]
acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or(iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
9- nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] Lohdfr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknh dk okn fujLr fd;k gS A f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks foLrr :i ls iqu% foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dh Hkh vko';drk ugha gS A bl laca/k esa bl U;k;ky; ds led{k ihB }kjk S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.01/2011: Surendra Kumar Jaggi Versus Ahmed Farooq and Ors . esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-08-2012 ds iSjk la[;k 14 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS %&
"14. It is well settled that evidence on record can not be reappreciated in second appeal under Section 100CPC like it could be done in first appeal under Section96 CPC and such second appeal would lie only if substantial question of law, as defined in various case laws, arises in the matter. Nothing of this sort is found in the present case."
10- AIR 2001 SC 965 Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', asoccurring in the amended Section 100 is not definedin the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying' question of law', means – of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with – technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the Legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words
[2024:RJ-JP:37947]
[CSA-358/2024]
(5 of 5)
'of general importance' as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1) (a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta & Anr. Vs. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 Privy Council 172,the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 of the C.P.C. (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties. ..."
11mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknh dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu o fo'ys"k.k fd;k gSA
vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
Rishikesh Soni/24
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rejecting the plaintiff's suit were vitiated by any substantial question of law.
Whether the High Court could reappraise evidence under Section 100 CPC in a second appeal.
Whether there were recognized exceptions to the rule against interfering with concurrent findings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigela Laxmi and Ors.Relied on¶13
AIR 2008SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus ArigelaLaxmi and Ors.
Surendra Kumar Jaggi Versus Ahmed Farooq and OrsReferred¶14
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.01/2011: Surendra Kumar Jaggi Versus Ahmed Farooq and Ors
Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.RsRelied on¶12
AIR 2001 SC 965 Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs · Who else cites this
Guran Ditta & Anr. Vs. T. Ram DittaReferred¶12
Guran Ditta & Anr. Vs. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 Privy Council 172 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kishangopal
Modulal
VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
