Ram Rati vs Chunmani

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—This is a second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of her sehan. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and recorded a finding that the defendant has been using the land in question as a way for going to the well, which is a public way.

The plaintiff had preferred a regular first appeal which has also been dismissed by the appellate court affirming the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the Court to various evidences and findings of the trial court and the appellate court but could not satisfy the Court that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any perversity.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the judgments of the trial court and the appellant court, in my view, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Moreover, the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are pure questions of fact and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence under Section 100 C.P.C.

The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. S.N. Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594 has considered the scope of word "Substantial Questions of Law". The relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court is extracted herein below:

"9.1) Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word ''substantial'' prefixed to ''question of law'' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. ''Substantial questions of law'' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100 CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this court (or by the concerned High Court so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by this Court (or by the concerned High Court), but the lower court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by this Court (or the concerned High Court) would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a substantial question of law as between the parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by this court (or the concerned High Court) and the same has been followed by the lower court, if the appellant is able to persuade the High Court that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two view points, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. There cannot, therefore, be a strait-jacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case..."

In the case of Kashibai w/o Lachiram and another v. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram and others, (1995) 6 SCC 213 the Supreme Court has held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C.

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.