Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2354 (RAJ)

Mali Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-04

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 28.8.2010 and 3.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar and Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar respectively. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit along-with an application for temporary injunction against the defendants-petitioners. The learned trial court, having analyzed the matter in detail, did not find the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff-petitioners and resultantly dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 3.8.2010. Aggrieved with the order dated 3.8.2010, the plaintiff-petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana. The learned appellate court, vide its order dated 28.8.2010 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners and affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction observing that no document or evidence was produced by the plaintiff-petitioners showing the disputed property to be the public chowk and that the disputed well was constructed by their fore-fathers. The learned Appellate Court, having discussed the entire evidence ad-longum, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners and affirmed the order of the trial court. There has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below. 4. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 (1) categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure concurrent findings of fact given by the trial court and the then appellate court. 5. In the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, (1963) 1 SCR 456 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. In this connection, the Apex court observed as follows: "It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. In this connection, the Apex court observed as follows: "It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. As the two Courts, approached the evidence from a correct perspective and gave a concurrent finding of fact, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding." 6. To the same effect is another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam, Chettiar reported in (1963) 3 SCR 604 , where the Court observed as follows: "But the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court, because as the Privy Council observed, however, gross or inexcusably the error may seem to be there is no jurisdiction under Section 100 to correct that error." 7. The same view was taken in two earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D. Pattabhiramaswamy v. Hanymayya reported in AIR 1959 SC 57 and Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 1097 . 8. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner. 9. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that this Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to upset the pure findings of fact of two courts below. The scope of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. This extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked only when the judgment of the court below is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. I do not find any ground to upset the pure findings of fact and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed as the impugned judgments rendered by both the courts below do not warrant any intervention. 10. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible. 11. 10. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible. 11. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******