http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6558 of 1999

PETITIONER: SARJAS RAI & ORS

RESPONDENT: BAKSHI INDERJIT SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/12/2004

BENCH: B.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T                  

       We have heard counsel for the parties.

       This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of High Court of  Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No.12 of 1999 dated 12th April, 1999 whereby the  High Court dismissed the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant on a finding that  there was no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal.

       The Second Appeal arose from a suit filed by landlord-respondent for  perpetual and mandatory injunction against the appellants alleging that they had  carried out certain structural changes in the premises let out to the                                                  ...2/-                                                                          -2-

appellant whereby the premises were substantially damaged and some parts of the  building developed cracks, it being an old building. It is not necessary for us to refer  in detail to the allegations made in the plaint. After examining the evidence the Trial  Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved his case and this was a fit  case for grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly, on 31.3.1998, the learned Civil  Judge passed a decree of mandatory injunction.

       Against the decree passed by the Trial Court an appeal was preferred  before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. By judgment and order dated  19.12.1998 the said appeal was dismissed.

       The appellant then preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court of  Delhi being Regular Second Appeal  No.12 of 1999 which, as earlier noticed, was   dismissed by the High Court on a finding that no substantial question of law was  involved in the Second Appeal. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a special leave  petition and after                                                  ...3/-

                       -3-

grant of special leave this appeal has been placed before us for disposal.

       After hearing the parties and going through the material placed before us  we concur with the finding of the  High Court that this case does not involve any substantial question of law which  deserved consideration under Section 100 CPC. All the findings recorded by the  Courts below are either pure findings of fact or at best mixed question of law and fact.  It has been found as a fact by the Courts below that the floor of the shop was sought  to be changed and in that process the level of the floor has been brought down one  feet below the road level. Similarly certain alterations were made in the structure by  removing pillars with a view to give a wider frontage to suit the convenience of the  appellant. On the findings arrived at by the Courts below, no substantial question of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

law arises. The High Court was therefore, justified in dismissing the Second Appeal.  

       We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly,  dismissed.                                                 ...4/-                         -4-

       Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that he is willing to obey  the decree of the Courts below and comply with the directions contained therein. He  submitted that since execution has been laid he is under constant threat and warrant of  attachment has been issued. We have no doubt that if the appellant takes steps  forthwith to comply with the decree passed against him, the executing Court on being  satisfied about his bona fide and genuineness, may grant him time to complete the  work and permit the decree to be executed.