SBCSA NO.231/2008- HEMRAJ V/S CHANDMAL SURANA . : ORDER DATED 23.9.2008
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.231/2008
Hem Raj
Versus
Chand Mal Surana
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.S.Sarupria, for the appellant.
DATE OF ORDER : 23rd September, 2008.
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of two courts below whereby in a suit for
injunction, the learned appellate Court by an order dt.6.2.2008 upheld
the learned trial Court’s judgment and decree dtd.1.10.2007 and these
two Courts came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right to
seek injunction against threatened dispossession from shop No.68
situated at Purani Dhanmandi, Raisinghnagar. The learned trial Court
SBCSA NO.231/2008- HEMRAJ V/S CHANDMAL SURANA . : ORDER DATED 23.9.2008
2/3
while deciding issue No.1 at page No.12 – 13 of the impugned
judgment has given a detailed finding that in respect of shop No.68,
the firm had been dissolved and under a rent agreement
dtd.17.11.1958 in para 3, it was clearly stipulated that Sampat Mal
will be the sole proprietor of shop No.68 in question and other co-
sharers, namely, Than Mal, Hanuman Mal, Chand Mal and Manmal
nor their successors shall have right, title or interest over the said
shop No.68 situated at Purani Dhanmandi, Raisinghnagar. A rent note
dtd.10.2.1995 was also executed in respect of the said shop and
therefore, the learned trial Court held that capacity of the plaintiff was
that of the tenant over the said shop and thus, he was not entitled to
any injunction as prayed for. The learned appellate Court also upheld
the said finding by a detailed discussions of the various issues.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel this Court is satisfied that no
substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal for
determination by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur V/s Kaki reported in
2007 (1) RLW 636 has held that second appeal is not to be treated as
third trial of facts and therefore, unless substantial question of law
arises for determination, the second appeal cannot be entertained.
SBCSA NO.231/2008- HEMRAJ V/S CHANDMAL SURANA . : ORDER DATED 23.9.2008
3/3
This Court is of the view that from the orders impugned in the
present appeal, no substantial question of law arises in respect of shop
No.68, situated at Purani Dhanmandi, Sri Ganganagar and the second
appeal is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J.
Item No.13
Ss/-