1.0. It appears that all office objections are removed. Therefore, present Second Appeal is taken up for admission hearing today.
2.0. Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants herein-original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehmdabad dated 18.1.2011 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 335 of 1999, by which, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said suit preferred by the appellants herein-original plaintiffs as well as judgment and order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nadiad passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2011 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.
3.0. The appellants herein original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.335 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Nadiad for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit property and that only they have right to way over ht lane in the suit property and that the defendants have no right to put up the construction in the open space on the northern side of survey no.1074 of the defendants. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that they resides at Nadiadi Darwaja and defendants resides on city Survey No.1074 which is on the eastern side of the plaintiffs house. That a lane attached between them while defendants western wall face the said lane. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that defendant has main entrance on the northern side of his house thus, has created new entrance on the western side of his house. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that lane on which the said entrance was created belongs to the house members of the lane and defendant has no right to place entrance on the lane. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written submission at Exh.15. The learned trial Court framed the issue at Exh.36 and on appreciation of evidence documentary as well as oral the learned trial Court held all the issues against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant and consequently dismissed the suit.
3.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Mehamdabad dated 18.1.2011 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.335 of 1999, the appellants herein-original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2011 before the learned District Court, Nadiad and the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Nadiad by impugned judgment and order dated 16.3.20112 has dismissed the said Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order/ decree passed by both the Courts below, the appellants herein
-original plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4.0. Heard Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellants-original plaintiffs and considered the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below which are on appreciation of evidence and hence same are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is not the case on behalf of the appellants-original plaintiffs that findings of fact given by both the Courts below are perverse and / or contrary to the evidence on record. Even the learned advocate for the appellants is not in a position to point out any substantial question of law which arise in the present Second Appeal. It cannot be disputed that Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required to be entertained unless any substantial question of law arise. As stated above, learned advocate for the appellants has failed to point out any substantial question of law. Under the circumstances, present Second Appeal is not required to be entertained.
5.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Second Appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
6.0. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, no order in Civil Application and is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
( M. R. Shah, J. ) "kaushik"
Top