Shri Ram vs Radheshyam
2024 Latest Caselaw 15475 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Ram vs Radheshyam on 22 May, 2024

                                                          1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 189 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SHRI RAM S/O NATHURAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                           VILLAGE CHIDGOAN TAMOLI TAHSIL RAHATGOAN
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    RADHESHYAM S/O RAMESHWAR RAJPOOT,
                                 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VILLAGE CHIDGAON
                                 TAMOLI   TAHSIL RAHATGOAN     (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SHIVDHAV SINGH S/O JAGDISH RAJPOOT, AGED
                                 ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILLAGE CHIDGOAN TAMOLI
                                 TAHSIL RAHATGOAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    JAGDISH S/O GAJRAJ SINGH RAJPUT, AGED
                                 ABOUT 62 YEARS, VILLAGE CHIDGOAN TAMOLI
                                 TAHSIL RAHATGOAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    RAM KRISHN S/O KISHAN CHACHERE GUJR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILL. ALAMPUR TEH.
                                 RAHATGOAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE )

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                           ORDER

Heard on admission.

Appellant/plaintiff is aggrived by the judgment and decree dated

27.6.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.47-A/2010 whereby the suit for mandatory injunction and for compensation has been dismissed. This judgment has been affirmed by the first appellate court vide Judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed in RCA No. 21-A/2015.

Trial court on pleadings of both the parties framed as many as six issues and after affording opportunity to adduce the evidence concluded all the issues against the appellant/ plaintiff. The findings has been affirmed by the first appellate court.

Learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on paragraph 11, 15 and 16 of the judgment of coordinate bench in MA No. 690/2022 dated

13.5.2022 submits that if any application for spot inspection by the Commissioner was not filed on behalf of the appellant, it was for the court to appoint a Commissioner for spot inspection.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out how the findings given by the courts below are perverse and need any interference by way of second appeal. No substantial questions of law is involved. This court is not obliged to re appreciate the evidence in second appeal. There is no justification in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts.

Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Akm