2026 Supreme(Raj) 271
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
Hariram Yogi S/o Sh. Badrilal – Petitioner
Versus
Devilal Meena S/o Sh. Ramjilal Meena – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1810 of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Lakshaya Sharma, Adv. with Ms. Pratibha Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv.
An appellate court will only interfere with an order of the trial court if it is found to be perverse, illegal, or lacking in judicial discretion; mere possibility of a different view does not constitute valid grounds for reversal in civil appeals.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 1 - Scope of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - Appellate jurisdiction over lower court orders - The Court examined the challenge to the order passed by the trial court. Appellate courts are tasked with evaluating whether the discretion exercised by the lower court suffered from any patent illegality, perversity, or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. Reappreciation of evidence for facts already settled is generally avoided unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by the material on record. (Paras 1-5)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against an order passed by the trial court in a civil matter. The appellant challenged the underlying judicial order, citing grievances regarding the interpretation of factual and legal components of the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The Court reviewed the merits of the contention raised. The findings focused on whether the impugned order met the threshold of judicial propriety and legal correctness. The reasoning prioritized the established record and the trial court's application of relevant procedural law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the lower court’s impugned order was legally sustainable or required an appellate intervention due to an error in the application of law or material irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there is no error in the exercise of discretion by the lower court that warrants interference in the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The impugned order aligns with the requirements of procedural and substantive equity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Back
