LexM/S. BHANWARLAL DUGAR & ORS. versus BRIDHICHAND PANNALAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 403 M/S. BHANWARLAL DUGAR & ORS. v. BRIDHICHAND PANNALAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal· No. 4889 of 2010) JULY 5, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.96 - Appeal from original decree - Scope of- HELD: A B c A regular first appeal is a rehearing of the suit and the appellate court is bound to appreciate the evidence on record and arrive at its own conclusion - In the instant case, the appellate court miserably failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as it copied verbatim the judgment of trial court D without any independent application of mind and appreciation of evidence - Rent Control and Eviction. · s. 115 - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - HELD: High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and set aside E concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below, by taking a different view of the evidence - It is open to High Court to remit the matter if it finds that the courts below did not consider the material evidence on record - In the instant case, though the High Court rightly held that the appellate court failed to F consider the material evidence on record, but it erred it undertaking that responsibility upon itself - Order of High Court set aside - Matter remitted to appellate court for hearing and disposal of the appeal afresh - Rent Control and Eviction. The 'nstant appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-landlords G against the judgment of the High Court passed in a revision petition reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court that the tenant-respondent was a wilful defaulter, 403 H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 O] 7 S.C.R. A liable to be evicted and that the landlord-appellants bona fide required the premises for their own business. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The plaintiffs-appellants in their plaint in B clear and categorical terms have pleaded that the schedule premises is bona fide required by them for their own use as they and their sons have to do their own business from the schedule premises. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence available on record c has found that the appellants/plaintiffs do not have any other suitable place to start their own business except the suit premises which is situated on the ground floor. The appellate court without appreciating the evidence available on record merely copied verbatim the findings 0 of the trial court. It committed the same mistake even while considering the issue relating to wilful default on the part of the defendants. [para 6-7 and 9) [407-A-B, G; 408-G) 1.2. A regular first appeal is nothing but a rehearing E of the suit and the appellate court is bound to appreciate the evidence available on record and arrive at its own conclusions. Only such conclusions arrived at upon appreciation of the evidence are conclusive and not normally interfered with by the revisional court by re- F appreciating the evidence. In the case on hand, the appellate court copied verbatim the judgment of the trial court without any independent application of mind and assessing the evidence. The appellate court miserably failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. [para 7) [407- G H; 408-A-B) . 2. It is settled law that the High Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence and set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below by taking a different view of the evidence. It is always open to the H High Court to remit the matter if in its opinion the courts BHANWARLAL DUGAR & ORS. v. BRIDHICHAND 405 PANNALAL & ORS. below did not consider the material evidence on record. A In the instant case, the High Court instead of remitting the matter for consideration afresh by the appellate court, chose to undertake that responsibility upon itself, on the ground that the appellate court failed to consider the material evidence on record, which course cannot be s sust~ined. [para 8) [408-D-F] 3. The order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is rnmitted to the appellate court for hearing and disposal 01 the appeal afresh in accordance with law and C expeditiously. [para 10) [408-H; 409-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.8.2009--0f the High 0 Court of Gauhati in Civil Revision Petition No. 157 of 2009. Vijay Hansaria, Aseem Mehrotra, Abhijat P. Medh for the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.