Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors v. ArigelaLaxmi and Ors. ds iSjk la

Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Chagan Lal, Mohalla Ilayayan, Teh. Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu

3. Municipality, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishwas Saini, Adv. Mr. Laxmikant, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 01/09/2025 ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] >qa>quq }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 07@2004 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 30-01-2015 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½ >qa>quq }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 125@1986 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 14-08-2003 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h ,oa vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA [2025:RJ-JP:34909] (2 of 5) [CSA-203/2015] fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd izR;FkhZ dze&3@uxjikfydk >qa>quq }kjk lkoZtfud pkSd Hkwfe ds ,d Hkkx dk iV~Vk izR;FkhZ dze&1 o 2 ds i{k esa tkjh dj fn;k x;k ftlds lca/k esa ?kks"k.kk vkfn ds ckcr~ ,d iwoZorhZ okn vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tks [kkfjt gqvk ,oa mlds fo:) vihy yafcr gSA orZeku okn LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd lkoZtfud pkSd ds ,d Hkkx ij uxjikfydk >qa>quq }kjk tks iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] og fof/k&lEer ugha gS] fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z rqM+okus o Hkfo"; esa fuekZ.k ugha djus ds laca/k esa LFkk;h ,oa vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk pkgh gSA bl i`"BHkwfe esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd lkoZtfud pkSd ds mi;ksx miHkksx dk vf/kdkj lHkh ukxfjdksa dk gS] mlds laca/k esa uxjikfydk }kjk iV~Vk tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj blh fof/kd fcUnq ds vk/kkj ij ;g f}rh; vihy izLrqr dh x;h gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dze&3 }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe dks lkoZtfud pkSd dk Hkkx crk;k] tcfd izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 o 2 dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk dk fuosnu gS fd iwoZ esa fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;h tkdj muds i{k esa uxjikfydk }kjk iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] vihykFkhZx.k dk iwoZorhZ okn [kkfjt gks pqdk gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dze&1] 2 o 3 ds chp ,d vU; iwoZorhZ okn jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij izR;FkhZ dze&1 o 2 ds i{k esa oknxzLr Hkwfe dk iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k] fookfnr LFky lkoZtfud pkSd ugha gSA iwoZorhZ okn tks fd vihykFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] mleas fookfnr LFky dks lkoZtfud pkSd ugha ekurs gq, [2025:RJ-JP:34909] (3 of 5) [CSA-203/2015] oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA orZeku ekeys esa lq[kkf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk pkgh Fkh vkSj fookfnr LFky dks lkoZtfud pkSd dk Hkkx crk;k] ijUrq fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k gS fd oknxzLr LFky pkSd dk Hkkx ugha gSA nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us oknhx.k dk okn fujLr djus ds laca/k esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr 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 oknhx.k 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 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." [2025:RJ-JP:34909] (4 of 5) [CSA-203/2015] nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] Lohd`fr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd;k gS A f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks foLr`r :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." 11- 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 '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 [2025:RJ-JP:34909] (5 of 5) [CSA-203/2015] 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. ..." mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknhx.k 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 Mittal /20 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J