Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/129/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 129 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6754 of 2010
In
SECOND
APPEAL No. 129 of 2010
=========================================================
PARSHOTAMBHAI
MANABHAI - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
VIJAY H NANGESH for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MS VS PATHAK, AGP for Defendant(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 23/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the
impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Amreli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of
2005 on the grounds set out in this Second Appeal. The substantial
questions of law, which are sought to be raised and subsequently
placed on record, are as under:
(A) Whether
the learned first Appellate Court had not overlooked the issue
regarding under Section 127, 128, 130, 186, 188, 286 and 315 of the
P.W.D. Manual and the Bombay Irrigation Act under Section 4 & 15
are not followed by the respondent forest department at the time of
constructing the ‘forest pond’?
(B) Whether
the learned first Appellate Court had not erred in deciding that this
is an ‘Act of God’ and not part of carelessness and negligence of the
opponents?
2. However,
from bare perusal of the record as well as considering the
submissions, learned advocate has not been able to point out anything
from the material which can be said to be substantial question of
law, and as a matter of fact, as reflected in the impugned judgment
and order which has been discussed in detail in para 5, the present
appellant – respondent failed to prove even the damages.
Therefore, considering the well accepted principle regarding the
scope of second appeal as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a
judgment reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court P. 2872, this
Second Appeal cannot be entertained as there is no substantial
question of law involved and the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed in limine and according stands dismissed. Notice
discharged.
3. In
view of order passed in main matter, the civil application does not
survive and accordingly stands disposed of.
(RAJESH
H. SHUKLA, J.)
jani
Top