JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant-defendant Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'JdVVNL') through its officers has laid this this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to assail judgment & decree dated 13th of November, 2018, passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu (for short, ‘learned first appellate Court’), whereby learned first appellate Court has affirmed judgment and decree dated 18th of December 2017, passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Rajgarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent for damages. 2. Necessary facts, for the purpose of this appeal, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC against appellant-defendants as his healthy she-buffalo died due to electrocution after coming in contract with loose live electric wire while grazing in the farm. As per the averments of plaintiff, the she-buffalo had delivered a baby buffalo just one month before death and was giving approx.18 kg milk per day. A report of the incident was lodged at concerned Police Station and thereafter postmortem was conducted by veterinary doctor. A sum of Rs.1,15,000 was claimed by the respondent plaintiff for loss of his buffalo attributing negligence and careless on the part of defendants in not properly maintaining the electric lines, poles and transformer. As per averment of the plaintiff he and other villagers had earlier complained about loose wire lying beneath transformer and the electric implements being in damaged condition but no action was taken and when compensation was demanded for death of his buffalo, nothing was paid as such he sent a legal notice whereupon compensation was clearly denied. The plaintiff claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,15,000 as price of his buffalo with interest thereon @12% per annum from the date of incident. 3. After service of summons, appellants contested the claim of respondent-plaintiff and filed detailed reply to the claim refuting their negligence as averred in the plaint. The appellant defendants stated that the incident might have occurred on account of she-buffalo gave aggressive shirks by horns at the place of transformer resulting in breaking and falling of live electric wire and buffalo died. The appellants denied their liability and prayed for dismissal of the suit filed against them. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed issues for determination. For substantiating claim, respondent-plaintiff examined 4 witnesses. The appellants denied their liability and prayed for dismissal of the suit filed against them. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed issues for determination. For substantiating claim, respondent-plaintiff examined 4 witnesses. In counter, appellants also tendered evidence of four witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.1 to 10. After recording evidence of parties, the learned trial Court heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment & decree allowed the claim of the respondent-plaintiff as aforesaid. 5. In the instant case, on appreciation of evidence and available material, the learned trial Court decided main issues No. 1 & 2 pertaining to death of she-buffalo by electrocution and entitlement of plaintiff to receive compensation from appellant-defendants in favour of plaintiff and the other two issue Nos.3 & 4 about not giving notice under Section 161 to the defendants and suit being barred by limitation, which were to be proved by defendants, were decided against them. The learned trial Court finally fastened the liability to pay compensation on appellants decreeing the suit against appellant-defendants. Feeling aggrieved by the same, appellants preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. 6. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment & decree of learned trial Court. Mr. C.P. Soni, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the findings of learned Courts below are perverse and not in consonance and conformity with the evidence and other materials on record. Learned counsel would contend that both the Courts below have not examined the lis involved in the matter in right perspective completely overlooking the material facts. Mr. Soni urges that issue of negligence was decided against the appellants on the basis of assumptions and conjectures and even if there is a concurrent finding of fact, this Court is not loathed with the power to examine the perversity of the findings recorded by the Courts below. Harping on proposed substantial questions of law, learned counsel submits that these questions require consideration and adjudication. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defedants and perused the impugned judgments and record of both the Courts below. 8. On thorough examination of the impugned judgments, it is crystal clear that the learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact by marshalling the evidence and the learned appellate Court while fully concurring with the said finding of fact has affirmed the same. 8. On thorough examination of the impugned judgments, it is crystal clear that the learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact by marshalling the evidence and the learned appellate Court while fully concurring with the said finding of fact has affirmed the same. 9. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the plaintiff lost his healthy she-buffalo on account of electrocution after coming in contact of live electric wire. The buffalo was an earning source of plaintiff’s income and at the relevant time after giving birth to baby buffalo was a source of milk to which the plaintiff has been deprived. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, has recorded definite finding in favour of plaintiff for allowing compensation to him which is based on sound appreciation of evidence and the learned first appellate Court, after examining the evidence de novo, has fully concurred with the same. 10. The unison findings of fact, recorded by both the Courts below, upon evaluation of evidence and other materials available on record, sufficiently demonstrate that afflictions of the appellants are wholly untenable. As a matter of fact, concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is in consonance and in conformity with evidence and other materials available on record. Legal position is no more res integra that in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC, it would be unwise and imprudent to enlarge the scope of judicial review so as to treat even an erroneous decision of a final Court of law and facts, i.e., first appellate Court, vulnerable. Therefore, upon close scrutiny of the impugned concurring judgments, in my view, no substantial question of law is forthcoming requiring adjudication in this appeal. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, the instant appeal is bereft of any merit and devoid of any force, and therefore, same is hereby rejected summarily.