High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1855/2026dismissed

Leelawati v. Rameshwar

2026-05-13Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor10 pages

!"#$!%&'&"()*++ ,,-

.!/'0'

) 1,

+ .

. ++ /2

%$&

'(('')

%$&

+,''(

$ - .

& '

'',

)01

*" 3'',

5(')

"$ $*&

" "&

& *

" $

5(')

"$ $*&

& &$

( ;&

" $

" & 1

!"#

!"# $

!"#

2 & <1 7 : /

<1'

% & = <1 <1(

<1, &

""1 & &"

<1)

2 & <15 >8 :$ # 2 8

?2 1,

8 ?

8 ,

2 & "

)( ')') (' () '

'17 6

) "

)01

" $$

"" 6$

(

5 ;

3 >

$ >

%$&

% $

$& # "

$ *

> $ "$

" $$

# &

(01 > $

> $ "$

$""

* !

""9 !

),01 "& * $

@ $ &

> $ "$

&$ %$&

$ *

'',

)01

& 8

3'',

'''',

& *

(

2 & *

<1(

<1, &

& !

?2(

)01

?2 ,

& 8

$ * $ 2 $

12 &

$$ "

;

! " $ $

" $ :

! " $ $

;

" $ *$

" $

" *

* , 7

?2(

?21,

"$ *

?2,

$ &

" "

$*/$

?2(

?2,

"$ *

* $

* &

$ &

) " "

* &

5'(

8 ?

),01 "& * $

# "

* *

?2 (

?2 ,

$ :

& %

( 8

) 8

'',

&& !

$$ $&

( 8

* &$

' 8

$$ $&

* $

3 "

$ $ "&

%$&

$"" "&

' It is well settled that in Regular Second Appeal, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts returned by both the Courts below. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc Id # 2034559 - M/s. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): ; has held as under:- "14. This Court, in the case of (2019) 17 SCC 71- Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh and Others, after considering the scope of interference under the old section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "CPC") and Section 41 of the Punjab Act, has observed thus: "15. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact."

15. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that, even when a court exercises jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are erroneous, howsoever gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. It has been held that the findings of fact would also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act would be available only when there is a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the CPC or by any other law for the time being in force."

(Emphasis added)"

the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

' "

" .

*++ 3($!!4 < 8 0 A0 <

* A0