Inder Singh & Ors. Vs. Devinder Kaur & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1991
Petitioner: Inder Singh & Ors.
Respondent: Devinder Kaur & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1991
Judges: A.P. MISRA & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 27, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100 – Second appeal – Compensation for causing death – Lower court decreeing suit and awarding Rs. 80,000 – First Appellate Court setting aside decree and dismissing suit – High Court, without formulating substantial question of law, allowing appeal and awarding Rs. 97,000. Held that High Court fell in error in disturbing the findings of court below. Amount of Rs. 50,000 deposited and withdrawn by respondent not to be refunded and security discharged.
(Paras 2, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court in second appeal in which the High Court after weighing the evidence on record has set aside the Appellate Court’s order. The question which is raised in the suit itself was whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased Jagjit Singh. The trial court decreed the suit and granted Rs. 80,000/- as compensation against the appellant. The Appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. However, the High Court in second appeal as aforesaid, after weighing the evidence based upon the evidence of P.W. 5 set aside the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court
and enhanced the compensation to Rs.97000/-. However, we are not entering into the merits of this case as the basic question is, whether the High Court could have interfered with the finding of fact in the second appeal. Admittedly no substantial question of law is raised nor it has been formulated by the High Court, nor it could be pointed even today while making the submissions. Accordingly, we feel that the High Court fell into error in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court in the absence of any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the first Appellate Court is confirmed.
3. In the present case, we are informed earlier that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards the part of the said compensation which has been withdrawn by the respondent on furnishing the security.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and looking into the facts of the present case, we feel that the amount already withdrawn by the respondent, not be directed to be refunded back for the payment to the appellant; consequentially, the security furnishing by the respondents may be discharged.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal succeeds. Costs on the parties.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court in second appeal in which the High Court after weighing the evidence on record has set aside the Appellate Court’s order. The question which is raised in the suit itself was whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased Jagjit Singh. The trial court decreed the suit and granted Rs. 80,000/- as compensation against the appellant. The Appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. However, the High Court in second appeal as aforesaid, after weighing the evidence based upon the evidence of P.W. 5 set aside the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court
and enhanced the compensation to Rs.97000/-. However, we are not entering into the merits of this case as the basic question is, whether the High Court could have interfered with the finding of fact in the second appeal. Admittedly no substantial question of law is raised nor it has been formulated by the High Court, nor it could be pointed even today while making the submissions. Accordingly, we feel that the High Court fell into error in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court in the absence of any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the first Appellate Court is confirmed.
3. In the present case, we are informed earlier that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards the part of the said compensation which has been withdrawn by the respondent on furnishing the security.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and looking into the facts of the present case, we feel that the amount already withdrawn by the respondent, not be directed to be refunded back for the payment to the appellant; consequentially, the security furnishing by the respondents may be discharged.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal succeeds. Costs on the parties.
