Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Hoshiar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal process and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding appeal outcomes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. evidence and claims related to familial relationships. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court’s handling of withdrawal application. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. supreme court precedents on withdrawal of suits. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. limitations of second appeal and substantial questions of law. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. conclusion on meritlessness of appeal. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. dated 22.8.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, (1), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 14.01.2020 has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (1), Kangra, H.P. on 29.01.2014.
3. It was
The right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute; it depends on the crystallized rights established by the court's earlier judgments.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
Second Appeal – Substantial question of law -condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a Second Appeal being existence of a substantial question of law, whenever a question is framed by the H....
High Court in second appeal under CPC Section 100 cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or involving substantial question of law; co-sharer construction on joint land not ouster ....
Possession claims must be substantiated with evidence; the mere existence of an old agreement without action does not support a claim for possession after significant delay.
Second appeals under CPC S.100 do not permit re-appreciation of evidence; concurrent findings upheld absent perversity or substantial question of law. Adverse possession claim fails without rebutting....
In second appeals under CPC Section 100, no interference with concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law or perversity; co-sharers may develop joint property if partition not impo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
