Rajasthan High Court
Narendra Pujari vs Municipal Board Chirawa on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 359/2018
1. Narendra Pujari S/o Sanwar Mal R/o Ward No. 16,
Chirawa, Tehsil Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu. Raj.
2. Pradeep Pujari S/o Sanwar Mal, R/o Ward No. 16,
Chirawa, Tehsil Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu. Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Municipal Board Chirawa, Through Its Chairman Municipal
Board, Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
2. Executive Officer, Municiapl Board, Chirawa, Distt.
Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma with
Mr. Shyogi Ram and
Ms. Shefali Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
27/06/2022
1. Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under
Section 100 CPC, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu in C.R.A No.14/2017, affirming the
judgment and decree dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Civil Judge,
Chirawa, in Civil Suit No.22/2006 whereby and whereunder
plaintiffs' civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction has
been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the
material available on record.
(2 of 3) [CSA-359/2018]
3. It appears that plaintiffs instituted the present civil suit to
protect the possession of their wooden kiosk for which the
Municipal Board, Chirawa issued notice, dated 31.05.2006, under
the provision of Municipalities Act.
As per notice, the land on which the wooden kiosk is situated
belongs to the Municipal Board, Chirawa and plaintiffs are in illegal
and unauthorized possession.
4. On perusal of fact findings recorded by both courts below, it
appears that plaintiffs could not produce any document to show
that the wood kiosk is situated either on their own land or on the
land of temple. Both courts on appreciation of evidence of PW.1
and PW.2, have recorded fact findings that plaintiffs have no
documents of ownership as to show their possession lawful or as
licensee rather than have admitted that the wooden kiosk is
situated on the land of public choupal. It has been observed that
on receipt of notice by the Municipal Board, Chirawa, plaintiffs
have not even filed reply to the notice, to contend that they are in
lawful and authorized possession. The fact findings recorded by
both courts below are based on appreciation of evidence available
on record and well within jurisdiction.
5. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellants-
plaintiffs are essentially questions of fact requiring reappreciation
of evidence, which is not permissible within the scope of Section
100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity
in findings. None of the question of law, falls within the purview of
substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of
Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial
question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of
concurrent findings of facts, even if erroneous, cannot be
(3 of 3) [CSA-359/2018]
disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kondiba
Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC
722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of
Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9
SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors.,
[(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2
SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC
434], State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors.,
[(2019) 10 SCC 595] and C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors.
Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and Ors. Reported in [(2020) 4 SCC
659]
6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this second
appeal, hence the same is dismissed.
7. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
8. There is no order as to cost.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
