Sharvan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By the instant appeal, appellant-plaintiff has challenged judgment dated 08.08.2013, passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby, learned lower appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant has affirmed judgment and decree dated 13.10.2006, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court') dismissing his suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

The facts, in brief, are that appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, inter-alia, on the ground that his application for grant of quarry licence is repudiated by the respondent-Mining Department in gross violation of principles of natural justice despite order dated 07.12.1994, passed by Deputy Secretary, Mining Department, Rajasthan remanding the matter back.It is, inter-alia, averred in the plaint that when the original allottee-Hari Shankar failed to comply with the requisite formalities, allotment of quarry, was cancelled and that situation facilitated regrant of the said quarry.

The suit is contested by respondents by filing written statement. In the return, it is inter-alia, averred that the application submitted by appellant was premature, inasmuch as, after cancellation of allotment to Hari Shankar in adherence of Rule 27C of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, no notification was published inviting the quarry for re-grant, and therefore, in the interregnum, application submitted by appellant was premature.

Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled six issues for determination.

The rival parties tendered their evidence.

After conclusion of evidence, the learned trial Court proceeded to decide first three crucial issues simultaneously. Upon appreciation of evidence and materials available on record, learned trial Court has observed that undeniably when the appellant submitted his application, the quarry in question was not notified as free for regrant, and therefore, the application submitted by him was premature. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence tendered by the appellant-plaintiff, Court has also recorded a definite finding that the appellant failed to prove this aspect of the matter, and therefore, there was no occasion for the Department to observe principles of natural justice. When the application submitted by appellant itself was premature, obviously, observing principles of natural justice would have been an empty formality and it could not have yielded any fruitful result. While considering the positive assertion of the appellant that he is in possession of the quarry, learned trial Court has observed that appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his status on the quarry for remaining in possession. Taking into account, all these aspects, learned trial Court decided all the three crucial issues against the appellant-plaintiff. While adverting to issue Nos.4, 5 & 6, learned trial Court has decided issue No.4 against respondent-Mining Department, and while examining issue No.5, has found that equally efficacious remedy of departmental appeal was available to the appellant for seeking redressal of his grievance. The decision on crucial issues eventually entailed rejection of the suit.

Feeling disgruntled with the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, appellant-plaintiff approached learned lower appellate Court. Learned lower appellate Court, made sincere endeavour to re-appreciate the evidence and scrutinized the findings recorded by learned trial Court. After examining the findings in the backdrop of evidence and other materials available, learned appellate Court fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court. Learned lower appellate Court has found that the judgment rendered by learned trial Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and warrants no interference.

Well, it is true that learned lower appellate Court has not discussed the evidence in detail but then if the appellate Court is concurring with the finding and conclusions of learned trial Court, it need not encumber judgment with the detailed discussion of the evidence and can very well record its concurrence by discussing evidence in general.

My this view is followed by a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury (AIR 1967 SC 1124), wherein the Apex Court observed that appellate Court in the concurring judgment need not discuss evidence in detail. The Court held:

"It is true that the High Court did not enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence, but it generally approved of the reasons adduced by the Trial Court in support of its conclusion. We are unable to hold that the learned Judges of the High Court did not, as is contended before us, consider the evidence. It is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the Trial Court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the Trial Court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice."

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned judgments as well as record of the case, in my opinion, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be faulted.

Law is trite that in second appeal, Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited and after amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977, the same is drastically circumscribed. The law envisage that appeal is entertainable only when there is substantial question of law involved in the matter, and further an aggrieved party is also expected to propose substantial question of law in terms of sub- section (3) & sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant has though proposed some substantial questions of law and has also laid emphasis on those substantial questions by relying on the provisions of the Rules of 1986. However, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances and taking into account concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, which is based on sound appreciation of evidence, in my view, no substantial question of law is forthcoming in the matter requiring adjudication. The proposed substantial questions of law are also not satisfying the requirements as such.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.