Delhi High Court
Satender Kumar Upmanyu vs Vijay Nanwal & Ors on 15 February, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. NO.82 OF 2012
Decided on : 15th February, 2013
SATENDER KUMAR UPMANYU ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
VIJAY NANWAL & ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.8637/2012 (for delay)
1. This is an application for condonation of 14 days' delay in refiling
the appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. For the reasons
mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and 14 days' delay in
refiling the appeal is condoned as 'sufficient cause' is shown.
3. The application stands disposed of.
R.S.A. No.82 OF 2012
1. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 sub-section (1)
of CPC against the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and
for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by the
learned Administrative Civil Judge dismissing the suit filed by the
appellant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been
contended that the appellant was working as a pujari in the temple in
question and he could not have been turned out by the respondents
without any rhyme or reason. He further contended that the courts below
have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions as well as gone
through the record. The appellant has essentially raised questions of
appreciation of evidence. I am afraid, so far as the questions of
appreciation of evidence are concerned, that is, beyond the scope of the
second appeal as it is not the case of the appellant that the finding of fact
arrived at by the court below is not supported by the evidence. His case
is that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. The evidence has
already been appreciated by the courts below and they have arrived at a
concurrent finding. The regular second appeal is admissible only when a
substantial question of law is involved. No substantial question of law
has been formulated or shown to the court to be arising from the appeal in
question.
4. It is admittedly not the case of the appellant that this is a case
without there being evidence or that the finding is perverse. In this
regard, it may be pertinent to mention that the appellant herein filed a suit
against Vijay Nanwal, Delhi Electricity Workers Union, DESU Ekta
Karamchari Union (Regd.), The General Manager, BSES Shakti Kiran
Building and The Chief Executive, BSES Shakti Kiran Building (all
respondents herein) for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction.
5. The case of the appellant was that he was appointed as pujari by
the authorized union, that is, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in respect of
a temple situated on a parcel of land bearing No.C-6/C-7, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi, which previously belonged to DESU and after unbundling of its
successor DVB, this parcel of land had gone to the respondent No.4, The
General Manager, BSES, Shakti Kiran Building. The appellant has
contended that on satisfaction of his services as a pujari, his services
were confirmed by the Union. Necessary documents in this regard were
relied upon by the appellant and accordingly, the aforesaid three reliefs
were prayed.
6. All the respondents filed their written statement and the respondent
No.4 and 5 contested the claim of the appellant that he was a legally
appointed pujari for the purpose of conducting pujas at a mandir situated
on their property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed :-
"(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration, as prayed? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory
injunction, as prayed? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction, as prayed? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit, as alleged? OPD 2, 4 and 5
(v) Relief."
7. So far as issue Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, they were dealt with
together by the learned trial court which arrived at a finding that there
was no vested right with the appellant to have been validly appointed as a
pujari by the competent person and, therefore, he could not be granted
declaration as prayed for. Similarly, his prayer for grant of mandatory
and permanent injunction was also disallowed. Accordingly, in nutshell,
the suit was dismissed on 27.11.2010.
8. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the first appeal which
was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge vide
order dated 28.11.2011. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the
judgment passed by the trial court.
9. Still not being satisfied, the present second appeal has been filed. I
have heard the learned counsel for the appellant hereinabove. I do not
find that any substantial question of law is arising from the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2013
'AA'
