The High Court will not interfere with findings of fact unless substantial questions of law arise or if lower courts ignored material evidence.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2021 passed by 3rd District Judge, Itarsi in Civil appeal No.29/2013 arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.12.2012 passed by IInd Addl. Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Itarsi in Civil Suit No.5A/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that plaintiffs are owner and in possession of plot no.1 area 3565 sq.ft. and plot No.3 area 9000 sq.ft. Surajganj Scheme of the Town Improvement Trust was notified and it was to be completed in two stages and stage one was implemented but stage 2 was never implemented and plaintiffs land was never included in the notification for acquisition and no acquisitions proceedings as per law were completed. Defendant intends to take over the possession of plaintiff’s property illegally.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was filed and it was allowed and order dated 17.02.2017 was passed by Honble High Court in W.P.No.17241/2006 was taken on record and from above, i.e. order passed by High Court in paras 16,17, 22, 23, 29 and 30, it is evident that acquisition proceedings were over. Still Appellate Court did not reverse the trial Court’s findings with respect to the acquisition proceedings that acquisitions proceedings are not complete and in para 32 affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as it is.

In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others , (1995) 4 SCC 229 . On above grounds, it is urged that in the instant case with respect to the findings recorded by the trial Court in para 11, substantial questions of law as mentioned in the appeal memo arises for the determination in this second appeal. Hence, this appeal be admitted for final hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents /plaintiffs after referring to section 319 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 , submits that learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below as well as appellate Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has also urged that in the instant case, Section 319 of the Municipalities act, 1961 does not apply to the facts of the present case and the present suit has been filed for permanent injunction. Hence, no substantial questions of law arise in the instant present appeal. Therefore, appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.5A/2012 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2021 passed in RCA No.100029/2013 dismissed defendant’s appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

7. Therefore, question arises as to when this Court can interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the first appellate court. In this connection, I would like to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrabhan (Deceased) through Lrs. And Others vs. Saraswati and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in para 33(iii) has held as under:-

“33 (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well - recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision” based on no evidence”,

it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as