Telangana High Court
Ch. Janardhan vs The Commissioner on 22 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.39 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 06.01.2020 passed by the V Additional District Judge
at Karimnagar, in A.S.No.118 of 2016, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge at Karimnagar, in O.S.No.89 of 2009.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal
are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.89 of
2009 against the respondents/defendants for damages. It is
contended that the plaintiff was owner of the vehicles bearing
Nos.ATC-4590 and AP-15-H-1030 and eking out livelihood by
hiring the said vehicles. The defendant No.3- Bank is using one
of the vehicles of the plaintiff on hire basis since 1997 @ Rs.225/-
per day towards rent and Rs.25/- per day towards batta of the
driver. The plaintiff and the defendant No.3 mutually agreed to
extend the agreement till 31.12.2020 by enhancing the rental
charges @Rs.250/- per day and driver batta @ Rs.50/- per day, 2 LNA, J S.A.No.39 of 2021
and accordingly, they entered into Memorandum of
Understanding-cum-Agreement Deed dated 18.12.2006. By the
said Memorandum of Understanding, the defendant No.3 also
agreed to bear the incidental charges till the termination of the
agreement.
4. While so, it is alleged that the defendant No.1, without any
reason, has violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement
dated 18.12.2006, and thereby, caused loss to a tune of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a
legal notice to the defendants on 24.02.2009 and that the
defendant Nos.2 and 3 got issued a reply to the said notice with
false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for damages.
5. The defendant No.3 filed written statement and the same
was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. In the said written
statement, it is stated that Agreement dated 18.12.2006 is not a
genuine document and it is a forged and fabricated one. It is
further stated that Sri G. Venugopal, who executed the said
Agreement dated 18.12.2006, died in July, 2008, and therefore, the
Bank terminated the Agreement dated 18.12.2006 and stopped
engagement of the jeep belong to the plaintiff on hire basis since 3 LNA, J S.A.No.39 of 2021
the last week of December, 2008. The plaintiff offered to provide
his jeep to the defendant No.3 on hire basis during the year 1998
and after settlement of terms, an agreement dated 24.01.1998 was
executed and no other document was entered thereafter.
Therefore, the agreement dated 18.12.2006 is false and fabricated.
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1
to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
7. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016,
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed
A.S.No.118 of 2016. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation
of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on
record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated
06.01.2020. Hence, the present second appeal.
8. Heard Sri J.C. Francis, the learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, the learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the record.
4
LNA, J S.A.No.39 of 2021
9. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts
below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to put-forth any
cogent or positive evidence to show the manner in which he
sustained loss or damage.
10. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the trial Court
dismissed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence
and the first Appellate Court also committed an error in
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
11. However, learned counsel for appellant failed to raise any
substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this
Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are
factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions
of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.
12. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the
Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100
C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings
on facts arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record.
5
LNA, J S.A.No.39 of 2021
13. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that
the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the
evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under
Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only
where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for
consideration.
14. Having considered the entire material available on record
and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting
interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100
C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual
in nature and no question of law much less a substantial question
of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.
15. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 22.01.2024 va 1 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
