Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Prasad Rajak vs Nand Kumar & Bors. & Anr on 18 August, 1998
In the case of
Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros and Anr. [(1998) 6
SCC 748] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the issue related to
bona fide and personal necessity of rented premises is purely based on
appreciation of evidence and is a question of fact and such issue does
not give rise to any substantial question of law within the scope of
Section 100 of CPC. In the present case, both courts have concurrently
held the issue of bona fide necessity against the appellants. Findings of
both courts below are based on appreciation of evidence. No illegality
and perversity have been pointed out in findings of fact of two courts
below.
Umerkhan vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh & Ors on 28 July, 2011
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umerkhan Vs.
Bismillabi [(2011) 9 SCC 684] has observed that the Court while
hearing the second appeal may frame additional substantial question of
law or may hold with the substantial question of law already framed do
not fall within the scope of substantial question of law. In the present
case, substantial question of law falls for consideration essentially is a
question of fact, which requires re-appreciation of evidence. While
exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the re-appreciation of
evidence is to draw a different conclusion than by the two courts below
is impermissible.
Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi And Ors on 5 January, 2016
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Damodar Lal
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 06:59:34 PM)
(7 of 9) [CSA-591/2003]
Vs. Sohan Devi and Ors. [(2016) 3 SCC 78] has also observed that
if a reasonable findings is based on fact, no interference should be
made. The findings of fact are the province of the trial court and the
first appellate court and the High Court should not disturb the same
unless and until findings of fact are perverse. Thus, the second appeal is
wholly bereft of merits.
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
This Court finds that the valuable time of this Court has spent on
this second appeal at the cost of other genuine litigations. The conduct
of appellants, showing their willingness to decide the second appeal on
merits even in 2022, despite their eviction from the rented shop on
18.03.2004, in execution proceedings of the eviction decree passed on
the ground of bona fide necessity, shows the cussedness and lack of
bona fides on the part of appellants. This Court condemns such conduct
of appellants. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramrameshwari
Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi Reported in [(2011) 8 SCC 249] observed
that in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts
have to ensure that there is no motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a
matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and
valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large
number of uncalled for cases . In that case, appeals were dismissed
with cost quantified to Rs.2 lakhs.
1