SATENDER KUMAR UPMANYU Vs. VIJAY NANWAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 sub-section (1) of CPC against the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been contended that the appellant was working as a pujari in the temple in question and he could not have been turned out by the respondents without any rhyme or reason. He further contended that the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions as well as gone through the record. The appellant has essentially raised questions of appreciation of evidence. I am afraid, so far as the questions of appreciation of evidence are concerned, that is, beyond the scope of the second appeal as it is not the case of the appellant that the finding of fact arrived at by the court below is not supported by the evidence. His case is that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. The evidence has already been appreciated by the courts below and they have arrived at a concurrent finding. The regular second appeal is admissible only when a substantial question of law is involved. No substantial question of law has been formulated or shown to the court to be arising from the appeal in question.