Harak Lal vs Manak Chand

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004 passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17.11.2003 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff/appellant, the First Appellate Court committed serious error of law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court because of the reason that the First Appellate Court considered other accommodations of the plaintiff which were in fact residential and could not have been used for commercial purposes by the appellant/plaintiff.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the First Appellate Court as well as the facts of the case.

The plaintiff''s son himself in his evidence admitted that adjoining to the shop in dispute, there is room of the plaintiff measuring 8 feet X 10 feet and the explanation given by the plaintiff''s son for this room is that other goods are lying in the room, therefore, room is not vacant.

In view of the fact that the First Appellate Court, after considering the evidence recorded finding of fact, this Court finds no illegality in the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court and, therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed.