1990 Supreme(MP) 129

K. L. Shrivastava, J.
Shivnarayan v. Shankarlal.
S. A. No. 209 of 1987 (I); Decided on 3-1-1990.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908 - S.100 - second appeal - even erroneous finding of facts cannot be interfered with -discretionary orders of Courts below-cannot be disturbed.

        (2) Stamp Act, 1899 - S. 36 - order admitting documents-cannot be reviewed or revised by same or superior Court.

        (3) Civil P. C., 1908 - O. 41, R. 27 -additional evidence not improving case- rejection at illegal.

        (4) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. l67 - prayer for additional evidence not improving the case rejected-decision cannot be reversed.

       

       ¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 100&f}rh; vihy&rFksa ds xyr fu"d"kZ esa Hkh gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk&v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds oSosfdd vkns‘k&fo{kqC/k ugha fd, tk ldrsA

        ¼2½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899&/kkjk 36&nLrkost Lohdkj djus dk vkns‘k&mlh U;k;ky; }kjk vFkok ofj"B U;k;ky; }kjk iqufoZyksfdr vFkok iqujhf{kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

        ¼3½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 41] fu- 27&ekeys dk lq/kkj u djus okyk vfrfjDr lk{;&[kkfjth voS/k ugha gSA

        ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 167&ekeys dk lq/kkj u djus okys vfrfjDr lk{; dh izkFkZuk [kkfjt dh xbZ&fu.kZ myVk ugha tk ldrkA

        This is tenants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1987 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in regular appeal No. 48-A of 1987 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the IVth Civil Judge, Indore in C. S. No. 79-A/1985 on the ground under section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

        Held: As pointed out in Poorans case (1983 MPWN 178) section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code had been enacted for the express purpose of securing Some measure of finality and as pointed out in the decision in Sate of U. P. v. Ramchandra (AIR 1975 SC 251) interference by the High Court with the concurrent finding of fact. even if the finding is erroneous, is not justified. The decision in Mohanlals case (1980 MPLJ 361) is also pertinent.

        As pointed out in the decision in Javer Chands case (AIR 1961 SC 16"5) an order admitting a document is not one of those judicial orders Which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction. The decision relates to section 36 of the Stamp Act. The decision is Annamalai case (AIR 1956 SC 12) may also be usefully perused.

        In the decision in Bairaychandras case (AIR 1988 SC 396) there was no issue On the question of alternative accommodation being available but the submission for the case being remanded to the first appellate Court for evidence for a finding on the question, was in the circumstances of the case, negatived.

        In the decision in Reserve Bank of India v. R. G. Morey (AIR 1976 SC 83) it has been held that the discretionary orders cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers u/s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

        In the circumstances, I find no merit in the contention that the application for reception of additional evidence ought not to have been rejected. It may be pointed out that even if that evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision and, therefore, in view of section 167 of the Evidence Act there is no ground for reversal of the decision of the lower appellate Court. 1983 MPWN 178, AIR 1976 SC 254, AIR 1961 SC 1655, AIR 1956 SC 12, AIR 1976 SC 83 and 1980 MPLJ 361 relied on. Appeal dismissed.