Govind Devi (Smt.) vs Kanhaiya Lal and Another

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—By way of the Instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the orders dt 28.01.2009 and 25.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur, respectively. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the petitioners and defendant/respondent No. 2 together with an application for temporary injunction. The learned trial Court, having analyzed the matter ad-longum, allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 vide order dt. 25.11.2008. Aggrieved with the order dt. 25.112008, the petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court also, vide its order dt. 28.01.2009, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-defendant and affirmed the order of the learned trial Court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts below.

The Full Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 (1) categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure concurrent findings of fact given by the trial Court and the then appellate Court.

In the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Vs. Jangbahadur Rai, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. In this connection, the Apex Court observed as follows:

It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact.

As the two Courts, approached the evidence from a correct perspective and gave a concurrent finding of fact, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding

To the same effect is another decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of R. Ramachandran Ayyar Vs. Ramalingam Chettiar, where the Court observed as follows:

But the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court, because as the Privy Council observed, however, gross or inexcusably the error may seem to be there is no jurisdiction under Sec. 100 to correct that error.

The same view was taken in two earlier decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of D. Pattabhiramaswamy vs. Hanymayya reported in AIR 1959 SC 57 and Raruha Singh vs. Achal Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 1097.

In this case, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner.

The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that this Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution to upset the pure findings of fact of two Courts below. The scope of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution is limited. This extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked only when the judgment of the Court below is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. I do not find any ground to upset the pure findings of fact and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed and the impugned orders rendered by both the Courts below do not warrant any intervention. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.