SA.263-00 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 263 OF 2000 Dilip Motiram Lodhi ...Appellant Vs. Mrs. Lilawati Kishore Lodhi ...Respondent *** Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Appellant. Mr. S. S. Hardekar, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He has filed the suit for possession of two rooms, out of CTS No. 395, situated at Shukrawar Peth, Pune, admeasuring 250 sq. ft. on the basis of a will executed by his father a will executed by respondent No.1. Written-statement was filed by the respondents in which it was alleged that the will was bogus, false and fabricated. It was also alleged that suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Both the Courts below i.e. SA.263-00 - 2 - the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have held that the will is not proved by the plaintiff. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff submitted that the trial Court had erred in comparing the writing on its own though expert witness was examined by the plaintiff. It was, therefore, urged that the said finding recorded was contrary to the expert evidence which was adduced by the plaintiff. It is not possible to accept the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of fat on this aspect and it will not be possible to set aside the said concurrent finding of fact. Both the Courts below have given cogent reasons while holding that the said will was not proved. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in1 the case of – Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam, Appellant vs. Pamarti Venkayamma, Respondent [(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 244]1 has deprecated the practice of interference of the High Court interfering with the finding of concurrent finding of fact. The Apex Court after taking into consideration the legislative background in the Fifty-fourth Report of the Law Commissioner of India in 1973, as well as the historical perspective in respect of the appellate jurisdiction which has to be 1. [(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 244] SA.263-00 - 3 - exercised by the High Court, the accumulation of arrears of Second Appeals in the High Court and the rationale behind permitting the Second Appeals on the question of law and thereafter taken into consideration the leading cases decided after the 1976 Amendment, has observed in paragraph 17 and 18 as under- “17. It is a matter of common experience in this Court that despite clear enunciation of law in a catena of cases of this Court, a large number of cases are brought to our notice where the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of fact without formulating the substantial question of law. 18. We have cited only some cases and these cases can be easily multiplied further to demonstrate that this Court is compelled to interfere in a large number of cases decided by the High Courts under Section 100 CPC . Eventually this Court has to set aside these judgments of the High Courts and remit the cases to the respective High Courts for deciding them de novo after formulating substantial questions of law. Unfortunately, several years are lost in the process. Litigants find it both extremely expensive and time consuming. This is one of the main reasons of delay in the administration of justice in civil matters.” 3. In the present case, the substantial question of law which was sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is SA.263-00 - 4 - whether the Courts below were justified in comparing the hand writing of Tekchand Lodhi in respect of the disputed and undisputed document, written by him, when expert evidence was led by the plaintiff. In my view, both the Courts below have given cogent reasons why the Court has recorded the said findings. The Courts has also taken into consideration the opinion given by the hand writing expert and thereafter recorded the said findings. Therefore, in my view, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]