Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra Jaiswal vs The State Of U.P. And Others on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 243 of 1980
Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Jaiswal
Respondent :- The State of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- ,G.N. Verma,Siddharth Niranjan
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Mangal Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Triloki Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. This is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code arising out of judgment and decree dated 16.10.1979 passed in Civil Appeal No.57 of 1979 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai upholding the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1979 in Original Suit No.25 of 1978.
3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from realizing Rs.19,246/- by arresting the plaintiff and by any other means. The said suit was numbered as Original Suit No.25 of 1978. The Trial Court framed following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff suffered the loss of Rs.19,246.40 or any other amount due to the closure of shops under the order of the defendants as pleaded in para 7 and 11 of the plaint?
2. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from recovering the amount from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint?
3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 C.P.C.?
4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 3(5) of the Public Money Recovery of Dues Act?
5. Whether the suit is barred by the provision of Order 89 C.P.C.?
6. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41 of S.R.Act?
7. Whether the suit is barred by doctrine of Estoppel and acquiescence and waiver?
8. Whether the suit is barred by Section 287A and Section 330 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act?
9. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?"
4. Vide judgment dated 24th March, 1979, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Against the said judgment, Civil appeal was preferred and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.10.1979 upholding the order of the Trial Court, hence, the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that as both the Courts below had recorded categorical findings of fact against the plaintiff, he is not pressing the appeal on merits and is ready to deposit the amount quantified by the defendant.
6. Sri Triloki Singh, learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the said fact and states that the plaintiff-appellant shall also be liable for the payment of interest on the amount, which accrued in the year 1978 against the plaintiff. He further submitted that the State is ready to accept the amount alongwith interest.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. From perusal of record, I find that both the Courts below have recorded categorical finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Moreover, as the appellant himself is not pressing the appeal and is ready to deposit the amount, as required by the defendants, no interference is required in the present appeal.
9. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Office shall transmit record of Court below.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
Kushal
