Years, R/o Dhanna Talai Kali Paltan, Tonk v. Moolchand S/o Kesarlal, Aged

: Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 03/09/2025 ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Vksad }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 36@2019 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 19-01-2023 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@izfroknh dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku vfrfjDr ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] Vksad }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 117@16 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 22-01-2019 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ@oknh dk okn Lohdkj dj fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 112 o 113 esa [2025:RJ-JP:35219] (2 of 4) [CSA-38/2023] izfroknh dks fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djus rFkk oknh ds mi;ksx&miHkksx esa ck/kk mRiUu ugha djus ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds tfj;s ikcUn fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ@izfroknh rFkk izR;FkhZ@oknh dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh dh vksj ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M la[;k 112 rFkk 113 'ke'ksj ls tfj;s bdjkjukek [kjhndj dCtk izkIr fd;k vkSj muesa ekSds ij fuekZ.k o pkjnhokjh gks j[kh gS] ysfdu izfroknh ml ij dCtk rFkk vuqfpr gLr{ksi djus ij vkeknk gS rFkk bl ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk pkghA izfroknh dh vksj ls mijksDr vfHkdFkuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd okLro esa mDr Hkw[k.M 'ke'ksj ds eq[r;kjvke 'kk;jk csxe ls o"kZ 1999 esa [kjhn fd;s rFkk Lo;a dks dszrk gksuk crkrs gq, oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fook|dksa dh fojpuk dh x;h rFkk ;g vfHker fn;k fd nksuksa i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij mDr Hkw[k.M 'ke'ksj ds LokfeRo ds gksuk fooknjfgr gSA oknh }kjk tfj;s bdjkjukek mu Hkw[k.Mksa dk dCtk 'ke'ksj ls izkIr fd;k tkuk crk;k gS rFkk mlh vuq:i mldh lk{; jgh gS] tcfd izfroknh i{k dh tks lk{; izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlds vuqlkj izfroknh us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlus ;s Hkw[k.M o"kZ 1999 esa 'ke'ksj dh eq[r;kjvke 'kk;jk csxe ls [kjhndj dCtk izkIr fd;k gS tcfd vfHkys[k ij miyC/k e`R;q izek.k i= ds vuqlkj Jherh 'kk;jk csxe dh fnukad 31-01-1996 dks e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa o"kZ 1999 esa ;g nksuksa Hkw[k.M 'kk;jk csxe ls [kjhnus dk rF; vius vkiesa [kafMr vkSj /oLr gks tkrk gS rFkk ;gh vfHker fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izdV djrs gq, oknxzLr Hkw[k.Mksa ij oknh dk vf/kdkj o dCtk ekurs gq, LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk nkok fMdzh fd;k x;k] ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gSA [2025:RJ-JP:35219] (3 of 4) [CSA-38/2023] fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd bl ekeys esa oknh }kjk LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kk dk dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha pkgk gS rFkk bl laca/k esa fook|d Hkh fojfpr ugha gqvk gS vkSj ;g fcUnq fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u gS rFkk bl vk/kkj ij ekeyk iqu% izfrizsf"kr djrs gq, nksukas U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSaA LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds ekeys esa LokfeRo dk fcUnq vkuq"kkafxd gSA orZeku ekeys esa oknxzLr Hkw[k.Mksa ij vihykFkhZ@izfroknh dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls tks vk{ksi fy;s gSa] os fopkj.k U;k;ky; vFkok fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha fy;s x;s FksA f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi ds laca/k esa AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. 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." blh izdkj fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u D;k gksxk] bl laca/k esa Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us 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', [2025:RJ-JP:35219] (4 of 4) [CSA-38/2023] 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......" - mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknh dk okn fMdzh fd;s tkrs le; miyC/k lkexzh dk leqfpr :i ls ewY;kadu o fo'ys"k.k fd;k gS rFkk f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks iqu% fo'ys"k.k o ewY;kadu vuqKs; ugha gS] ikfjr fu.kZ; o vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gS] nksuksa gh U;k;ky;ksa dk leorhZ o rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gS ftles fdlh izdkj dh =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls rFkk bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy x`g.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA ,rn~}kjk izLrqr f}rh; vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA Mittal /38 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J