[2025:RJ-JP:38276] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 58/2023 Vinod Kumar S/o Mohanlal, R/o House No. 104(A), Plot No. 13, Geeta Nagar, Bihariganj, Ajmer Substituted By Court Order Biram Gurjar S/o Shri Mangilal Gurjar, R/o Village Makadwali, Tehsil And District Ajmer. ----Appellant Versus 1. Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Ramchandra Sharma, R/o Geeta Nagar, Bihariganj, Ajmer. 2. Smt. Uma Devi W/o Ramesh Chand, R/o Geeta Nagar, Bihariganj, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 18/09/2025 1- vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vksj ls ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&5] vtesj }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 86@2016 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 21-01-2023 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 ¼d-[k-½ vtesj uxj ¼iwoZ½ vtesj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 31@1998 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMØh fnukad 18-03-2006 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA [2025:RJ-JP:38276] (2 of 5) [CSA-58/2023] 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquhA pwafd ;g f}rh; flfoy vihy gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks] rc rd lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh gS rFkk fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] mlesa lkekU; :i ls gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;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 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." 3- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vU; U;kf;d fu.kZ; Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 esa Hkh mijksDr er O;Dr djrs gq, ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] mijksDr 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 [2025:RJ-JP:38276] (3 of 5) [CSA-58/2023] 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 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." 4- fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u D;k gksxk] bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;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 [2025:RJ-JP:38276] (4 of 5) [CSA-58/2023] 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 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......" 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd izn'kZ&7 o 8 orZeku i{kdkjksa ls lacaf/kr ugha gksus ds ckotwn fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ml ij fopkj fd;k x;k] ;g xaHkhj fof/kd =qfV gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vU; ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; dk Hkh lgh :i ls foospu ugha fd;k x;k gS] ikfjr fu.kZ; rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gS] vr% vikLr fd;k tkos o oknh dk okn fMØh fd;k tkosA 6- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd orZeku f}rh; vihy gS rFkk leorhZ fu"d"kZ esa tc rd dksbZ xaHkhj vfu;ferrk ugha gks] gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA var esa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; dks fof/klEer gksuk crkrs gq, ;g f}rh; vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 7- lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh@vihykFkhZ }kjk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd mlds edku ds mRrj esa rFkk izfroknh ds edku ds nf{k.k esa tks 20 QqV fookfnr jkLrk gS] og oknh dh futh laifÙk gS] bl ij izfroknh ukyh vkfn fudky jgk gS] vr% LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkosA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nksuksa i{kksa ds ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; dks fopkj esa ysus ds mijkar ;g vfHker izdV fd;k gS fd dfFkr 20 QqV dk jkLrk oknh ds LokfeRo dk ugha gksdj lkoZtfud jkLrk gS vkSj oknh dk okn LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds ckcr~ [kkfjt fd;k x;kA tgka [2025:RJ-JP:38276] (5 of 5) [CSA-58/2023] rd izn'kZ&7 o 8 fu.kZ; dks fopkj esa ysus ds laca/k esa oknh dh vkifRr gS] fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izn'kZ&7 o 8 dks fopkj esa ugha fy;k x;k gS] vfirq i{kdkjksa ds }kjk tks ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS] mlh ds vuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA 8- iwoksZDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk o f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls ;g 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 bUÝsal 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 9- 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 10- LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /32