GOVIND DEVI Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the Instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set -aside the orders dt 28.01.2009 and 25.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur, respectively. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff -respondent No. 1 against the petitioners and defendant/respondent No. 2 together with an application for temporary injunction. The learned trial Court, having analyzed the matter ad -longum, allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 vide order dt. 25.11.2008. Aggrieved with the order dt. 25.112008, the petitioner -defendant preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court also, vide its order dt. 28.01.2009, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner -defendant and affirmed the order of the learned trial Court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts below.

(2.) THE Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 (1) categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure concurrent findings of fact given by the trial Court and the then appellate Court.

(3.) TO the same effect is another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Ramachandra Ayyar vs. Ramalingam, Chettiar reported in : (1963) 3 SCR 604, where the Court observed as follows: