UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both the parties, this Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Bipin I. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also considered the resistance placed by Ms. Samta Patel, learned counsel appearing for Nanavati Associates for the respondent.

(3.) I have considered both the judgments, that is, one of the trial court dated 30th November, 1987 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge [junior Division] Porbandar in Regular Civil Suit No. 160 of 1985 and another judgment dated 8th January, 1990, passed by the learned Assistant Judge, District-Junagadh at Porbandar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1988. The suit was filed for recovery of total sum with interest on account of loss sustained by the plaintiffs and on appreciation of evidence and facts placed by the parties, the learned trial judge decreed the suit. The first appellate court appreciated the evidence and the contents that were placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent, and while hearing the First Appeal, dismissed the same. Thus, this is the case of two concurrent findings. Ultimately, the case placed by the plaintiff was based on facts and findings recorded by both the courts below are on facts. As such, no substantial question of law can be said to have involved in the matter. True it is that while admitting the appeal, this Court has framed question of law as involved in the appeal, more particularly, in the background of grounds mentioned in the memo of the appeal.