Sharda Nand Tiwary v. Baban Tiwary

....Defendant-Respondents .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 8 12-02-2013 Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Money Appeal No.1 of 2003, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2002 passed by the learned Munsif, Bikramganj, district- Rohtas at Sasaram dismissing the Money Suit No.1 of 1989 filed by the petitioners, was confirmed. Initially this application was registered as a second appeal but in view of the statutory provisions of section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure the same was converted in its Patna High Court C.R. No.189 of 2012 (8) dt.12-02-2013 2 present form. The suit in question had been filed by the petitioners for a decree of Rs.19,000/- together with interest being the loss sustained by them due to institution of the proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) by the opposite parties. The petitioners claim Bataidari rights over the suit property. The issue of Bataidari was finally determined when the writ applications filed by the petitioners bearing C.W.J.C. No.4009 of 1985 and C.W.J.C. No. 1550 of 1986 were dismissed by the High Court. Thus the Bataidari claim, if any, made by the petitioners stood extinguished. It is the case of the petitioners that by institution of proceedings under section 144 Cr.P.C. he sustained a loss as the entire paddy crops stood damaged. The money suit was filed for recovery of the said damage. The learned courts below taking into consideration that the claim of the petitioners of being a Bataidar had failed up to the High Court and the petitioners had completely failed to support their claim by cogent evidence rather merely relied upon the proceedings under section 144 Cr.P.C. to espouse their claim, has rejected the money claim of the petitioners. Patna High Court C.R. No.189 of 2012 (8) dt.12-02-2013 3 There being a concurrent findings of facts by the learned courts below on the money claim raised by the petitioners, in absence of any substantial question of law and in absence of any findings of the courts below which can be rendered perverse, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction would refrain from interfering with the same. For reasons aforesaid this civil revision application is dismissed. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)