RATTAN DEV Vs. PASAM DEVI
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 13,2002
RATTAN DEV
Appellant
VERSUS
PASAM DEVI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAM MURTI VS. B K CHAWLA [LAWS(HPH)-2005-10-3] [REFERRED TO]A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD VS. RAKESH KUMAR PAHWA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
PREMLATA BAI VS. GANI MOHAMMED [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
TOKHA VS. BIRU [LAWS(HPH)-2002-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA BAI TULSHIRAM PITARE VS. SUKHDEO BHANU KUTHE [LAWS(BOM)-2005-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RAMBHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SUDAMA SINGH VS. BAIJNATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMBRIKSH SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
NEULAKALITA VS. RAJANI KALITA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNIKANT WALCHAND GANDHI VS. MOPHAN WALCHAND GANDHI [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN PANWAR AND ANOTHER VS. VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-219] [REFERRED TO]
EASWARI VS. PARVATHI [LAWS(SC)-2014-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
JASWINDER KAUR AND ORS. VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-481] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL SINGH VISHNOI VS. PUSHPA JAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PRITO DEVI VS. PREM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL PUKHRAJ VS. PREM KISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAGAN BHAI VS. LR'S OF LACHHI RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-5-195] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS VS. SHAKTI CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL HEIRS OF SANJOY GOGOI AND ORS. VS. MADHAB CH. DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2015-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
REVTI THAKUR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. [LAWS(HPH)-2006-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
VATSALBAI VISHWANATH NAKHATE VS. MADHAORAO LAXMANRAO THAKARE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-140] [REFERRED TO]
GANESAN VS. RAJAMANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-681] [REFERRED]
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI VS. MOHINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-94] [REFERRED]
JAI NARAIN VS. BODA RAM ALIAS BOD RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SAHAI VS. SURESH CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNEET KAUR VS. ST SOLDIER PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-168] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIR ALI VS. MEHAR TILAT [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
KUSMAUN PARISHAD VS. ADITYA VIKRAM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-283] [REFERRED TO]
GANAPURAM BRAMARAMBA VS. ANNEPARTHY ANANTHARAMAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-123] [REFERRED TO]
JUNNU RAIN VS. RAJ KISHORE [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
KARUNAKARAN VS. M P NALLATHAMBI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-246] [REFERRED TO]
RUPAK SHARMA VS. M/S. M.G. ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-2018-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB KALITA VS. THANU RAM KALITA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
SUGHRA BEE VS. KAREEZ FATIMA QURESHI [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ABDULLAH BUTUK VS. ZAINAB BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-53] [REFERREE TO]
MARYKUTTY WALTER AND ORS. VS. PATHROSE RICHARD AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KAKODKAR VS. VINAYAK GOPINATH NAIK KARMALI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SHANTI DEVI PARASAR VS. SMT. KOSHALYA DEVI GOYAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A suit for issuance of permanent preventive injunction filed by the appellant herein was decreed by the trial court. The defendant preferred an appeal. The first appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and directed the suit to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High court forming an opinion that the findings arrived at by the first appellate court were purely findings of fact and no substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 CPC arose for consideration.
(3.)A perusal of the judgment of the first appellate court shows that the plaintiff-appellant did not appear in the witness box although his special power of attorney and other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. The first appellate court influenced by the non-examination of the plaintiff drew an adverse inference against him and directed the suit to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-examination of the plaintiff. The judgment of the first appellate court shows that other evidence, though available on record, did not receive the attention of the first appellate court at all.
(2.)A suit for issuance of permanent preventive injunction filed by the appellant herein was decreed by the trial court. The defendant preferred an appeal. The first appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and directed the suit to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High court forming an opinion that the findings arrived at by the first appellate court were purely findings of fact and no substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 CPC arose for consideration.
(3.)A perusal of the judgment of the first appellate court shows that the plaintiff-appellant did not appear in the witness box although his special power of attorney and other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. The first appellate court influenced by the non-examination of the plaintiff drew an adverse inference against him and directed the suit to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-examination of the plaintiff. The judgment of the first appellate court shows that other evidence, though available on record, did not receive the attention of the first appellate court at all.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.