[2025:RJ-JP:37882] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 234/2021 Ramavtar Choudhary S/o Shri Dabbli Prasad, R/o Keshavpura, Kota (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Nagar Vikas Nyas, Kota Through Secretary. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Kota. 3. Gram Panchayat Borobas, Through Sarpanch/secretary Panchayat Samiti, Ladpura, Kota. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv. Ms. Dipti Jindal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mutha, Adv. for Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mutha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 17/09/2025 ;g f}rh; vihy oknh@vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&3] dksVk }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 94@2019 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 30-09-2021 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼nf{k.k½ dksVk }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 263@2010 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 02-07-2019 dh iqf"V dh [2025:RJ-JP:37882] (2 of 7) [CSA-234/2021] x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkh@oknh dk okn ckcr~ vkns'kkRed LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh@vihykFkhZ rFkk izfroknh la[;k&1@izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 dh cgl lquh x;h ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izR;FkhZ la[;k&2 o 3 dh vksj ls ckotwn rkehy uksfVl dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSA lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k oknh dk okn jgk gS fd fnukad 01-02-1979 dks xzke iapk;r u;kxkao rglhy ykMiqjk ftyk dksVk }kjk ,d Hkw[kaM 80x140 QhV dk iV~Vk la[;k 129 fxjkZt ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k rFkk oknh }kjk ;g Hkw[kaM fxjkZt ls fnukad 15-02-1992 dks tfj, fodz; vuqca/k [kjhn dj dCtk izkIr fd;k rFkk lrr :i ls og ekSds ij dkfct gSA izR;FkhZx.k mls vfrdzeh crkrs gq, ekSds ls csn[ky djuk pkgrs gSa ftlds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk pkgh x;hA izR;FkhZ uxj fodkl U;kl }kjk ;g Hkwfe flok; pd rFkk izR;FkhZ la[;k&2 laHkkxh; ou vf/kdkj }kjk ;g Hkwfe ou foHkkx dh vkjf{kr Hkwfe gksuk crkrs gq, oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k rFkk mldh vihy Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj [kkfjt gqbZA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh@vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd iV~Vk la[;k 129 dks fujLr djusgsrq l{ke U;k;ky; ls dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha gqvk gSA oknh ekSds ij yacs le; ls crkSj ekfyd dkfct gS] ysfdu fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk bl rF; ij xkSj fd;s fcuk vihyk/khu vkns'k ikfjr fd;s gSa] [2025:RJ-JP:37882] (3 of 7) [CSA-234/2021] tks iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gSA tcfd fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 }kjk nksuksa vk{ksfir fu.kZ; dks fof/k lEer gksuk crk;k gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izn'kZ ,&1 jkT; ljdkj ds uksfVfQds'ku rFkk izn'kZ&2 tekcanh ds vuqlkj ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k gS fd fookfnr LFky vkjf{kr ou {ks= esa fLFkr gS rFkk ;g Hkwfe dHkh Hkh xzke iapk;r dh ugha jgh] xzke iapk;r dks iV~Vk tkjh djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iV~Vk vukf/kd`r :Ik ls tkjh fd;k x;k gS rks og 'kq: ls 'kwU; gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; leorhZ jgk gS rFkk oknh dh gSfl;r vfrdzeh dh ekuh x;h gSA nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls j[ks x, rdksZ o fordksZa ij fopkj fd;k o miyC/k vfHkys[k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA gLrxr f}rh; flfoy vihy dh xzkg~;rk ds izdze ij ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gksrk gS fd D;k bl f}rh; flfoy vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrfuZfgr gS vFkok ugha \ bl laca/k esa AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %& "13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below [2025:RJ-JP:37882] (4 of 7) [CSA-234/2021] have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 7 SCC 641 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd f}rh; vihy esa rF;ksa ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o iqu% fo'ys"k.k vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ewy :i ls tgka fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gks] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj f}rh; vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; viuh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS] bl fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS& "Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. We have noticed and [2025:RJ-JP:37882] (5 of 7) [CSA-234/2021] even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the first appellate court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law." Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %& " 12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial [2025:RJ-JP:37882] (6 of 7) [CSA-234/2021] question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties......" mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk iqu% /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk lgh :i ls fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;k gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd pwafd izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dk dCtk ekuk x;k gS] vr% fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;s fcuk mls csn[ky ugha fd;k tkosA mijksDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dh gSfl;r vfrdzeh dh ekuh x;h gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead) through Lrs. ¼2012½ 5 ,l lh lh 370 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS [2025:RJ-JP:37882] (7 of 7) [CSA-234/2021] fd tgka l{ke U;k;ky; esa oknh viuk vf/kdkj izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gS rks mlds i'pkr M~;w izkslsl ls csn[ky fd;s tkus dk vkns'k mfpr ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; rFkk mlds i'pkr bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ckn oknh dks csn[ky fd;s tkus gsrq i`Fkd ls dksbZ izfdz;k viuk;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Murari Lal Sharma /52