In a Civil Second Appeal, the Rajasthan High Court rejected the appellant's claim that a factual issue was a question of law, dismissing the appeal and affirming the lower courts' finding that the respondent is not the defendant.
Second appeal dismissed; First appeal decree confirmed.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:37251]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 556/2005
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Lal, Chand, Hairdresser House No.16/364, Kawanduspura, Ajmer.
----Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Shri Prabhu Dayal S/o Shri Roop Chand, House No, 16/364, Kawanduspura, Ajmer.
----Respondent/Plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. O P Mishra, Adv. Ms. Meeta Pareek, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
15/09/2025
izfroknh@vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g f}rh; vihy varxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k Øe&3] vtesj }kjk nhokuh vihy la[;k&32@2005 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-10-2005 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh] ftlds ek/;e ls izfroknh dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ofj"B [k.M Øe&2] vtesj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&09@2001 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 26-02-2005 dh iqf"V dh xbZ] ftlds ek/;e ls izfroknh ds fo:) fu"dklu o e/;orhZ ykHk dk nkok izR;FkhZ@oknh ds i{k esa fMØh fd;k x;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh@vihykFkhZ o izR;FkhZ@oknh dh cgl lquh] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
[CSA-556/2005]
[2025:RJ-JP:37251]
(2 of 6)
lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh@izR;FkhZ }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr dj vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd okn i= esa of.kZr oknxzLr nqdku ij izfroknh dks 700@&:i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ukSdj j[kk x;k Fkk] ckn esa fookn gksus ij /kkjk 145 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr nqdku dks lhy dj fn;k x;k ysfdu fnukad 23-02-1991 dks izfroknh us rkyk rksM+dj bl nqdku dk tcju dCtk ys fy;k] dCtk ikus o 300@&:i;s izfrekg e/;orhZ ykHk ds :i esa fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA izfroknh dh vksj ls tokc nkok izLrqr dj oknxzLr nqdku esa vius vki dks vfrØeh gksus ls budkj djrs gq, oknh dk fdjk;snkj gksuk vfHkdfFkr fd;kA
fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ckn fopkj.k izfroknh dks oknxzLr ifjlj esa vfrØeh ekurs gq, mijksDrkuqlkj nkok fMØh fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) izLrqr vihy Hkh [kkfjt gqbZA
fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh@vihykFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd izfroknh i{k dk 'kq: ls gh ;g cpko jgk gS fd og oknxzLr ifjlj esa fdjk;snkj gS] izn'kZ&40 foØ; i= fnukad 22-09-1967 esa Hkh izfroknh Hkaojyky iq= ykypan dks fdjk;snkj gksuk crk;k gS ysfdu bl rF; dks utjvankt dj fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk xaHkhj =qfV dkfjr dh gS vkSj blh fcanq ij fof/kd iz'u fojfpr fd;k x;k gSA miyC/k lkexzh ds vuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; rF;ksa o fof/k ds fcYdqy foijhr gksus ls vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA
blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh@izR;FkhZ dk rdZ gS fd fnukad 22-09-1967 ls izfroknh fdjk;snkj gks] ,slk Lo;a mlus uk rks vfHkdFku fd;k gS uk gh lk{; gS] vfirq mlds xokg Mh-MCY;w&2 lqjs'k }kjk izfroknh dk oknxzLr ifjlj esa o"kZ 1984 ls 1994 rd fdjk;snkj ds :i esa dkfct gksuk crk;k gS] tcfd Lo;a izfroknh }kjk o"kZ 1988 ls fdjk;snkj gksuk
(3 of 6) [CSA-556/2005]
[2025:RJ-JP:37251]
crk;k gSA izfroknh i{k dh lk{; o cpko ijLij fojks/kkHkklh gS vkSj lHkh rF;ksa dks fopkj esa ysus ds ckn lE;d :i ls vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr gqvk gSA fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa varxzZLr ugha gS] var esa vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
bl laca/k esa vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh dks utjvankt fd;k x;k gS] bl fcanq ij fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u fojfpr gqvk gS ijarq nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; ls Li"V gS fd lHkh nLrkosth o ekSf[kd lk{; dks fopkj esa ysus ds mijkar izfroknh i{k dh lk{; dks vfo'oluh; o fojks/kkHkklh gksuk ekurs gq, vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA ekSf[kd lk{; ds vuqlkj Hkh Li"V gS fd izfroknh dh lk{; mlds vfHkdFkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gSA izfroknh dk ;g cpko jgk gS fd og oknxzLr ifjlj esa fdjk;snkj gS ysfdu fdjk;s dh dksbZ jlhn tks Hkw&Lokeh }kjk tkjh dh xbZ gks] izLrqr ugha gqbZ gSA fdjk;snkjh dc ls izkjaHk gqbZ gS] bl ckcr~ Hkh fojks/kkHkkl gSA f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gSA
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
[CSA-556/2005]
[2025:RJ-JP:37251]
(4 of 6)
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."
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd f}rh; vihy esa rF;ksa ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o iqu% fo'ys"k.k vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ewy :i ls tgka fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gks] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj f}rh; vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; viuh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS] bl fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS&
"Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the first appellate court, either without formulating the
[CSA-556/2005]
[2025:RJ-JP:37251]
(5 of 6)
substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law."
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in 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 “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 v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (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......"
mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk iqu% /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk
(6 of 6) [CSA-556/2005]
[2025:RJ-JP:37251]
U;k;ky;ksa }kjk 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 bUÝsal gks] ,slk nf"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk lgh :i ls fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;k gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gSA
mijksDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ miyC/k lkexzh ds vuq:i gS] mlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gSA nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk miyC/k lkexzh dks utjvankt fd;k x;k gks ;k mldh xyr O;k[;k dh xbZ gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh izdV ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tks fof/k dk lkjHkwr iz'u fojfpr fd;k x;k gS] og okLro esa vfLrRo esa ugha gS] vr% ;g f}rh; vihy fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kker% ;g f}rh; vihy vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 05-10-2005 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
DINESH KUMAWAT /01
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Courts below labelled the issue as a substantial question of law when only a question of fact was involved.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the defendant's status should be disturbed in the absence of material evidence contesting it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. vs. Arigda Laxmi and Anr.Relied on¶26
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 · Who else cites this
Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna SinghApplied¶32
Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Narayanan Rajendran vs. Lekshmy SarojiniReferred¶33
Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 · Who else cites this
Guran Ditta vs. T. Ram DittaReferred¶39
Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Lal
Shri Prabhu Dayal S/o Shri Roop Chand
Uma Shanker Vyas
Dinesh Kumawat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
