- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set-aside the order dated 8th March, 2011 as also the order dated 22nd February, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kishangarh, District Ajmer and Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer respectively.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing no. 3/2011 titled Banshi Lal Versus Mukesh Kumar, together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kishangarh, District Ajmer against the respondents/defendants for cancellation of the registered sale deed and permanent injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), after hearing the parties, did not find a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and dismissed the temporary injunction application on 8th March, 2011. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred an appeal and the court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer dismissed the appeal also. The petitioner has impugned both the said orders invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner albeit assailed the impugned orders rendered by two courts below, however, in alternate, implored that the respondents-defendants may be directed not to alienate the property in question till the decision of the suit. Having carefully perused the relevant material, it is noticed that there has been a concurrent finding of two courts below with regard to prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Both the courts below found that the petitioner had no prima-facie case in his faovur and thus, dismissed the prayer of granting injunction against the respondents-defendants. 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.
(3.) 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." 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." The same view was taken in two earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D. Pattabhiramaswamy V. Hanymayya reported in AIR 1959 SC 57 and Raruha Singh Versus Achal Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 1097. ;