[2025:RJ-JP:36619] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 279/2025 1. Mukesh @ Rakesh, Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 2. Jeetu @ Jitendra Son Of Late Mahesh Kumar Tailor, Son Of Banwari Lal Tailor Darji. Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 3. Nathi W/o Late Mahesh Kumar Tailor Darji., Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 4. Sheela, Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 5. Mamta Daughters Of Late Mahesh Kumar, Son Of Banwarilal Tailor Darji, Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 6. Suresh Kumar Tailor, Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 7. Omprakash Tailor S/o Banwarilal Tailor Darji, Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. 8. 8/1. Gaurishankar, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Ratanlal, 8/2. Mahaveer, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Ratanlal, 8/3. Poonamchand, Aged About 36 Years, S/o Ratanlal, 8/4. Smt. Shobhawati, Aged About 76 Years, W/o Ratanlal, 8/5. Prem Devi W/o Rajendra, Aged About 46 Years, D/o Ratanlal, R/o Opp. Police Station, Village Barbadva, Tehsil Deedwana, 8/6. Sunita Devi W/o Ramniwas, Aged About 43 Years, D/o Ratanlal R/o Village Suthoth Tehsil Laxmangarh, 8/7. Usha Devi W/o Jagdish, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gram Sarkari Tanki Ke Pass, Tehsil Sujangarh, 8/8. Sudha Devi W/o Sitaram, Aged About 34 Years, D/o Ratanlal, R/o Aathuna Mohalla, Ratangarh, Tehsil Laxmanagarh. [2025:RJ-JP:36619] (2 of 6) [CSA-279/2025] ----Appellants Versus 1. Nandkishore S/o Late Natwarlal Choudhary Mahajan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan 2. Kailash Tailor S/o Late Banwarilal Tailor, Darji, R/o Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur 3. Vishwanath S/o Late Ganpatram Darji, R/o Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Fatehpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Saini, Adv. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv. Mr. Abhi Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 10/09/2025 vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk ;g f}rh; vihy /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Qrsgiqj 'ks[kkokVh }kjk fu;fer nhokuh vihy la[;k&01@2023 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 02-04-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dh vihy vLohdkj dj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] Qrsgiqj] ftyk&lhdj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&31@2012 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-11-2022 dh iqf"V dh xbZ] ftlds ek/;e ls oknhx.k@izR;FkhZx.k ds i{k esa rFkk vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ds fu"dklu dh fMØh o e/;orhZ ds ykHk dh fMØh ikfjr dh xbZA lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknhx.k@izR;FkhZx.k }kjk vihykFkhZx.k@ izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr ifjlj esa fdjk;snkj gksuk crkrs gq, ;g vfHkdfFkr [2025:RJ-JP:36619] (3 of 6) [CSA-279/2025] fd;k fd fooknxzLr ifjlj ds laca/k esa jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds izko/kku vkd`"V ugha gksrs gSa] laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dks /kkjk 106 laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e dk uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k] tks mls rkehy gks pqdk gS vkSj rn~uqlkj fnukad 31-01-2012 dh e/;jkf= ls fdjk;snkjh lekIr gks pqdh gS ijarq ifjlj [kkyh dj dCtk ugha laHkyk;k gSA vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls fdjk;snkjh ds rF; dks fooknjfgr gksuk crk;k ijarq 'ks"k vfHkdFkuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn ckn fopkj.k fMØh fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) izLrqr vihy Hkh [kkfjt gqbZ gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd orZeku ekeys esa Hkw&Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha gS ysfdu bl rF; ij xkSj fd;s fcuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu"dklu dh fMØh ikfjr dh gS] tks fof/klEer ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k@izR;FkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd fdjk;snkjh dk rF; fookfnr ugha gS] uksfVl lE;d :i ls vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k ij rkehy gks pqdk FkkA nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk leorhZ fu"d"kZ o fu.kZ; gS rFkk f}rh; vihy ds ekeys esa iqu% lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] var esa vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 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;k A 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 \ [2025:RJ-JP:36619] (4 of 6) [CSA-279/2025] bl laca/k esa Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36619] (5 of 6) [CSA-279/2025] 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." 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 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 question of law' as it was employed in the [2025:RJ-JP:36619] (6 of 6) [CSA-279/2025] 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 bUQjUl 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 gS A 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 LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /93