Rajasthan High Court
Anil Kumar S/O Late Sh. Roshan Lal vs Rammanohar S/O Chagan Lal Rawat on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 11/2020
1. Anil Kumar S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 570, Golcha Bhawan, 20
Shop, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
2. Smt. Asha Devi W/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal, Resident Of Plot
No. 570, Golcha Bhawan, 20 Shop, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
----Appellants/Defendants
Versus
1. Rammanohar S/o Chagan Lal Rawat, Shopkeepar Govind
Bhandar And Govind Medical And General Store, Golcha
Bhawan, Plot No. 570, 20 Shop, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
..........Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Kamal Kumar S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal, Resident Of Plot
No. 570, Golcha Bhawan, 20 Shop, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
3. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal, Resident Of Plot
No. 570, Golcha Bhawan, 20 Shop, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
06/05/2022
1. The appellant-defendants have filed this second appeal
invoking Section 100 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree
dated 23.09.2019 passed in civil first appeal No.2/2017 by
Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
affirming the judgment and decree for recovery of damages dated
07.11.2017 passed in civil suit No.20/2002 by the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan,
(2 of 5) [CSA-11/2020]
Jaipur whereby and whereunder the following decree has been
passed:-
"अतः वाद वादी ववरुद्ध प्रवतवादीगण वीगण डि डिकण डिकी व डिक किया या जा डिकर
प्रवतवादीगण डिक को कियह आदआश वद कियआ या जातआ ह व डिक वआ वादी दारा वववावदत दद डिकान
डिकआ अनदर सआ डिकरवाई गई मरममत डिकआ 14,412/- रुप कियआ म किय ब कियाज, या ज को व कियाया ज
वाद प्रसतदवत डिकण डिकी वदनािनां डिक 10.11.2000 सआ आया ज वदनािनां डिक त डिक 6 प्रवतशत
साधारण वावार डिक ब कियाया ज डिकण डिकी दर सआ रावश 14,412 /- रुप कियआ पर ब कियाया ज डिकण डिकी
गणना डिकरनआ पर 14,700/-रुप कियआ ह कोतआ ह, इस प्र डिकार डिकदल रावश 29,112/-
रुप कियआ स कियदक्त एविनां पथ
ं डिक पथ
ं डिक रूप सआ वादी डिक को आदआश डिकण डिकी वदनािनां डिक सआ द को
माह डिकआ भीतर अदा डिकरे । द को माह डिकआ भीतर अदा कियगी ना डिकरनआ पर वादी
आदआश डिकण डिकी वदनािनां डिक सआ अदा कियगी त डिक 6 प्रवतशत वावार डिक साधारण व कियाया ज दर
सआ प्रवतवादीगण सआ ब कियाया ज प्राप्त डिकरनआ डिका अवध डिकारी ह कोगा। खा। खरार पक्ष डिकारान
अपना-अपना वहन डिकरे गआ।
वीगण डि डिकण डिकी पा। खरार तत कियार व डिक किया या जावआ। "
2. It appears from the record that appellants are landlords of
respondent-tenant. The rented premise is a shop bearing Gate
No.7 to 10 at Plot No.570 Golcha Bhawan, 20 Shop, Adarsh Nagar,
Jaipur. It is not in dispute that the respondent-plaintiff was in use
and occupation of the rented premise.
3. Respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming damages
alleging inter alia that landlords started to accumulate the water
on the roof of the rented shop in order to harass the tenants and
due to which the roof and rented shop bore cracks and the water
started to seepage from the roof. It was alleged that the tenant
was carrying out his business of medicine and general store in the
rented shop and due to seepage water from the roof, there was a
lot of damage to the goods. The tenant, initially filed a civil suit for
permanent injunction with application for Temporary Injunction. In
such proceedings an order dated 04.09.1997 was passed by the
(3 of 5) [CSA-11/2020]
High Court that the tenant would be entitled to get repairs in the
rented premise and the expenses would be borne by the
landlords. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff got the repair done
in the shop, and claimed the expenses to the tune of Rs.39,832/-.
4. It appears that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated
01.11.2000 to defendants to pay the aforesaid amount of
expenses and thereafter instituted the present civil suit for
recovery of the costs incurred in getting the rented premise
repaired alongwith interest.
5. Appellant-defendants submitted written statement, denying
the claim made by the respondent-plaintiff, however from the
record, it is clear that defendants and their witnesses did not
appear for cross-examination, and ex parte proceedings against
defendants were commenced before the trial court.
The trial court, according to the evidence of the plaintiff and
his witnesses as well as considering the documents (Exhibit Nos.
1, 2 and 3), observed that plaintiff has incurred at least an
amount of Rs. 14,412/- to get repair of the rented shop. It was
observed that the damage to the rented premise was caused due
to misdeed of defendants. The bills of the material and the
charges of labour were duly produced on record. On appreciation
of such evidence, the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of
amount of Rs.14,412/- and allowed interest at the rate of 6%
from the date of suit i.e. 10.11.2000 to the actual realization.
6. The appellant-defendants challenged the impugned judgment
and decree of trial court by way of first appeal. The first appellate
court, on appreciating the evidence on record did not find any
infirmity or perversity in the findings of the trial court and
affirming the same, however the first appellate court modified the
(4 of 5) [CSA-11/2020]
decree of the trial court to the extent of interest payable on the
principal amount of Rs.14,412/- and a lump sum amount of
interest of Rs.10,000/- was allowed on the principal sum of
Rs.14,412/-, hence the decree was passed for the recovery of
total decreetal amount of Rs.24,412/- including interest.
7. It appears from the judgment of appellate court that the
evidence adduced by the plaintiff has been re-appreciated and
issues have been re-considered and thereafter the first appellate
court affirmed the findings of the trial court.
8. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the suit for
recovery was barred by limitation and no specific period has been
proved by the plaintiff as to when the repairing work got done in
the rented premise.
9. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the
impugned judgments.
10. It appears from the record that the present suit for recovery
of amount was led on 10.11.2000. Prior to filing of the suit, the
legal notice dated 01.11.2000 was issued by the plaintiff.
11. The repairing work has been got done after passing the order
by the High Court dated 04.09.1997 whereby and whereunder the
tenant was allowed to get repair in the rented premise and it was
observed that landlords would bear the expenses, hence it is clear
that the repairing work was done during the period after
September, 1997 to 2000, and the civil suit for recovery filed on
10.11.2000. In such factual scenario, the suit may not be treated
as barred by limitation. More over, it appears that no defence of
the limitation was raised by defendants in their written
statements. Even the defendants did not appear in their cross
examination and remain ex parte. Both courts, on appreciation of
(5 of 5) [CSA-11/2020]
the evidence, have passed the decree for recovery of an amount
of Rs. 14,412/- with interest.
12. This Court does not find any perversity in the impugned
decree and findings of fact recorded by both the courts below do
no give rise any substantial question of law and hence, this second
appeal is found bereft of merits and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
13. Stay application and any other pending application(s) if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
