Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set -aside the orders dated 26th November, 2011 and 24th February, 2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Kota and learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), No. 5, South, Kota, respectively. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit came to be filed by the plaintiff -petitioner for permanent injunction against the respondents -defendants together with an application for temporary injunction before the learned trial court. The learned trial court, having analyzed the matter in detail, dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 24th February, 2011. Aggrieved with the order dated 24th February, 2011, the plaintiff -petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.5, Kota. The learned appellate court, vide its order dated 26th November, 2011, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff -petitioner and affirmed the order of the trial court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below.
(2.) THE Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose Versus Commissioner of Ranchi reported in, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 (1) categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure concurrent findings of fact given by the trial court and the then appellate court. In the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Versus Jangbahadur Rai, : (1963) 1 SCR 456, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. In this connection, the Apex court observed as follows: It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. As the two Courts, approached the evidence from a correct perspective and gave a concurrent finding of fact, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding.
(3.) TO the same effect is another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Ramachandra Ayyar V. Ramalingam, Chettiar reported in : (1963) 3 SCR 604, where the Court observed as follows: But the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court, because as the Privy Council observed, however, gross or inexcusably the error may seem to be there is no jurisdiction under Section 100 to correct that error.;