SBCSECOND APPEAL NO.314/2008- JAI NARAYAN V/S JAGDISH KUMAR . : JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2008
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.314/2008
Jai Narayan
versus
Jagdish Kumar
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the appellants.
DATE OF ORDER : 3rd December, 2008.
ORDER
1. This appeal of the defendant – tenant is directed against the
concurrent findings of two courts below decreeing the eviction suit
filed by the plaintiff – respondent on the ground of personal bonafide
necessity of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court while dismissing
the defendant’s appeal on 21.8.2008 upheld the decree of the learned
trial Court dtd. 30.1.2006 in respect of suit shop situated in Sardul
Colony, Bikaner.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the
course of first appeal, the plaintiff – respondent had constructed two
SBCSECOND APPEAL NO.314/2008- JAI NARAYAN V/S JAGDISH KUMAR . : JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2008
2/3
rooms over the suit shop in question and therefore, his bonafide need
stood satisfied. He submitted that these subsequent developments
were allowed to be taken on record vide order dtd.21.7.2005 of the
learned trial Court, still the learned trial Court failed to consider the
said aspect of the matter. He further submitted that the plaintiff –
respondent has alternative accommodation available with him and
therefore, the eviction decree could not be passed. He also submitted
that the learned trial Court has erred in directing eviction of the shop
with police help and therefore, the approach of the learned trial
Court was against the provisions of law.
3. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is satisfied that
no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal against the
concurrent findings of two courts below passing eviction decree on
the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff –
respondent. The said findings are essentially findings of facts, which
cannot be interfered with under Section 100 C.P.C. which is
maintainable only on substantial question of law arising in the matter.
Unless the findings can be shown to be perverse or resulting from
misreading of evidence, this Court cannot interfere in the second
appellate jurisdiction as it is not intended to be third trial on facts of
SBCSECOND APPEAL NO.314/2008- JAI NARAYAN V/S JAGDISH KUMAR . : JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2008
3/3
the case. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated such
interference in the case of Smt. Gurudev Kaur V/s Kaki reported in
2007(1) RLW 636. Consequently, this Court finds no force in this
appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J.
Item No.3
Ss/-
