HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. 1. Ghanshyam S/o Chandra Bihari, Pala Teh. Alwar Distt. Alwar 2. Satya Narayan S/o

Judgment

1. Ghanshyam S/o Chandra Bihari, Pala Teh. Alwar Distt. Alwar

2. Satya Narayan S/o Mool Chand, Pala Teh. Alwar Distt. Alwar

4. Om Prakash S/o Mool Chand, Pala Teh. Alwar Distt. Alwar

Smt. Suraj Devi D/o Mool Chand W/o Om Prakash, Talab Teh. Rajgarh Distt. Alwar

5. Kanta D/o Mool Chand W/o Bhramanand, Maujpur Teh. Laxmangarh Distt. Alwar ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manu Bhargava, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 23/09/2025 1- ;g f}rh; vihy oknh&vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls varxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&02] vyoj }kjk nhokuh vihy la[;k&04@2005 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 25-08-2007 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh] ftlds ek/;e ls oknh&vihykFkhZ dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky;] vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa [2025:RJ-JP:39204] (2 of 6) [CSA-125/2010] U;kf;d eftLVªsV la[;k&01] vyoj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&73@1991 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 21-07-2004 dh iqf"V dh xbZ] ftlds ek/;e ls oknh dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquhA pwafd ;g f}rh; flfoy vihy gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks] rc rd lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh gS rFkk fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] mlesa lkekU; :i ls gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa 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 x;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." 3- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vU; U;kf;d fu.kZ; Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 esa Hkh mijksDr er O;Dr djrs gq, ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] mijksDr fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS%& [2025:RJ-JP:39204] (3 of 6) [CSA-125/2010] "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 substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law." 4- fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u D;k gksxk] bl laca/k esa 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 x;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 [2025:RJ-JP:39204] (4 of 6) [CSA-125/2010] 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......" 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd dfe'uj fjiksVZ rFkk oknh i{k ds lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gS fd izfroknh us oknh ds edku ds iwoZ dh rjQ oknh dh 11 fQV yach o 6 bap pkSM+h Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k dj nhokj cuk nh rFkk izfroknh vU; vfrØe.k djus ij Hkh vkeknk gS ijarq blds ckotwn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; dks utjvankt djrs gq, vuqfpr :i ls vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 6- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd Lo;a oknh ds iq= ewypUn dks vfrØe.k djus ds fy, iapk;r }kjk vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS] oknh us vius okni= esa viuh Hkw[k.M dk {ks=Qy vkfn vafdr ugha fd;k gS uk gh dksbZ ekufp= is'k fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd f}rh; vihy ij lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu [2025:RJ-JP:39204] (5 of 6) [CSA-125/2010] vuqKs; ugha gS] orZeku ekeys esa dksbZ fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u mRiUu ugha gqvk gS] var esa vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 7- lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh }kjk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd mlds edku ds iwoZ dh vksj izfroknh us 11 fQV yach o 6 bap pkSM+h Hkwfe ij nhokj cukdj vfrØe.k dj fy;k gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k Vh-vkbZ- vkosnu esa dfe'uj fu;qDr gqvk gS ysfdu okn esa dfe'uj dks crkSj lk{kh fdlh Hkh i{k }kjk ijhf{kr ugha djok;k x;k gS] ijarq blds ckotwn nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls dksbZ fookn ugha gksus ij dfe'uj fjiksVZ rFkk nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd lk{; vkfn ij fopkj djus ds mijkar oknh dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS] ftldh iqf"V vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ gSA 8- iwoksZDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk o f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk 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 bUÝsal gks] ,slk n`f"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 9- 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:39204] (6 of 6) [CSA-125/2010] 10- LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /22