Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naseem Khan Alias Rajju vs Rajkumar Dubey Alias Rajkumar ... on 15 March, 2021
Author: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
1 SA-624-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
SA-624-2018
(NASEEM KHAN ALIAS RAJJU Vs RAJKUMAR DUBEY ALIAS RAJKUMAR DWIVEDI)
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-03-2021
Shri Riyaz Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 01.02.2018 delivered by learned Additional Judge
to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Shahdol, in Civil Appeal
No.05/2017, arising out of judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 passed by
learned Third Civil Judge Class-II, Shahdol, in Civil Suit No.10-A/2016;
whereby the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of
respondent/plaintiff and directed the appellant/defendant to pay arrears of rent
@ 1,500/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the vacation of the
shop in question.
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of
arrears of rent of the suit shop, which was decreed in favour of him,
thereafter, the appellant/defendant filed civil appeal before the learned lower
Appellate Court, which has also been dismissed. Therefore, the
appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the
learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgment and decree have
failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record in
its proper perspective. The learned trial Court whimsically answered all the
issues in negative. The judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts
below is perverse, contrary to facts and law on both counts; hence, deserves
to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the judgments and
decrees of both the Courts below be set aside and the suit for eviction of the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
appellant/defendant be dismissed.
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.03.17 15:19:37 IST
2 SA-624-2018
On going through the findings recorded by the Courts below there
appears to be no error in decreeing the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff.
The Courts below have considered the evidence available on record and have
properly arrived at the findings. The questions proposed by the
appellant/defendant in this appeal are questions of fact and are not related
with law. The Courts below have arrived at the concurrent findings after
appreciation of the evidence. therefore, the same does not deserve to be
interfered with in the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, as observed
by the Apex Court in the matter Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai
Sopan Gujar and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2213.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second
appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant.
This second appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
However, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to grant some
time to the appellant/defendant for vacating the suit shop with following
directions:-
(i) The appellant/defendant shall file an undertaking before the
Executing Court within a period of 15 days from today, that he shall vacate
the suit shop within a period six months from the date of this order.
(ii) The appellant/defendant shall also pay the arrears of rent to the
respondent/plaintiff till date.
(iii) If the undertaking is not submitted within a period of 15 days, then
the time to vacate the suit shop will automatically get vacated and the decree
holder shall be free to proceed further with execution proceedings.
(MOHD. FAHIM ANWAR)
JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.03.17 15:19:37 IST
