Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sahelibai vs Mangilal on 9 January, 2020
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 S.A.No.2255/2019
(Sahelibai and another Vs. Mangilal and others)
Indore : Dated 9.1.2020
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the appellants.
Though the case is listed for admission today but with the
consent of learned counsel, the appeal is heard finally.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal by plaintiffs under Section 100 CPC is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 16.5.2019 passed by 4th Addl.District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Appeal No.19/2018. Plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction was dismissed in civil suit No.5A/2018 vide judgment and decree dated 18/07/2018 by the trial Court.
Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are to the effect that plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants seeking relief for plastering the disputed wall from defendants' side.
The trial Court and first appellate Court have concurrently held that in the event prayer so made is allowed, the wall in question is required to be demolished under the garb of permanent injunction. Therefore, the defendants have not committed any illegality in resisting the same. Accordingly, dismissed the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant while criticizing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below tried to impress upon this Court that there is perversity of approach but, could not able to point out any illegality while rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs.
Upon hearing counsel for the appellant and perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have impeccably appreciated the evidence placed on record and reached to right conclusion that if the plastering of wall in question is allowed to be carried out, the wall in question on the side of the defendants has to be demolished. That 2 S.A.No.2255/2019 (Sahelibai and another Vs. Mangilal and others) cannot be permitted. The entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Patil Digitally signed by Shailesh Patil Date: 2020.01.09 18:21:01 +05'30'