Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1436 (ALL)

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. U. P. S. E. B.

2014-05-02

MOHD.TAHIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mohd. Tahir,J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.1998 passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijnor in Civil Appeal No.89 of 1997 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 2.7.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor in Original Suit No.632 of 1993. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments of both the courts below. 3. The plaintiff/appellant's case in brief is that U.P.S.E.B. be restrained from giving any electricity connection from the Transformer of the plaintiff/appellant to one Smt. Leela (defendant). 4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant and recorded the finding that it is the prerogative of the electricity board to give the electricity connection from any transformer. This finding of the Trial Court was upheld by the lower Appellate Court also and consequently the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 5. This appeal is at the admission stage and it is to be seen as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal or not ? 6. There are concurrent findings of both the courts below and the findings of both the courts below are based on legally admissible evidence and reasoning and it cannot be said that both the courts below have ignored any material evidence or any law or they have taken into consideration any impermissible or irrelevant evidence in arriving at their findings. Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of both the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any manifest error or illegality in the impugned judgments which may give rise to any substantial question of law warranting adjudication by this court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaya Din (dead) thr. Lrs & Ors. Vs. Hanuman Prasad (dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 386 : (200 AIR SCW 4275 has held that order of an authority is perverse in the sense that the order is not supported by the evidence brought on record or it is against the law or it suffers from vice of procedural irregularity. Lrs & Ors. Vs. Hanuman Prasad (dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 386 : (200 AIR SCW 4275 has held that order of an authority is perverse in the sense that the order is not supported by the evidence brought on record or it is against the law or it suffers from vice of procedural irregularity. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the concurrent findings of both the courts below are not supported by evidence or they are against the law or the courts below have committed any procedural irregularity in arriving at their findings. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, I do not find the involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.