SBCSA NO.231/2008– HEMRAJ V/S CHANDMAL SURANA . : ORDER DATED 23.9.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.231/2008 Hem Raj Versus Chand Mal Surana PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.S.Sarupria, for the appellant. DATE OF ORDER : 23rd September, 2008. O R D E R 1. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of two courts below whereby in a suit for injunction, the learned appellate Court by an order dt.6.2.2008 upheld the learned trial Court's judgment and decree dtd.1.10.2007 and these two Courts came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right to seek injunction against threatened dispossession from shop No.68 situated at Purani Dhanmandi, Raisinghnagar. The learned trial Court SBCSA NO.231/2008– HEMRAJ V/S CHANDMAL SURANA . : ORDER DATED 23.9.2008 2/3 while deciding issue No.1 at page No.12 – 13 of the impugned judgment has given a detailed finding that in respect of shop No.68, the firm had been dissolved and under a rent agreement dtd.17.11.1958 in para 3, it was clearly stipulated that Sampat Mal will be the sole proprietor of shop No.68 in question and other co- sharers, namely, Than Mal, Hanuman Mal, Chand Mal and Manmal nor their successors shall have right, title or interest over the said shop No.68 situated at Purani Dhanmandi, Raisinghnagar. A rent note dtd.10.2.1995 was also executed in respect of the said shop and therefore, the learned trial Court held that capacity of the plaintiff was that of the tenant over the said shop and thus, he was not entitled to any injunction as prayed for. The learned appellate Court also upheld the said finding by a detailed discussions of the various issues. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal for determination by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur V/s Kaki reported in 2007 (1) RLW 636 has held that second appeal is not to be treated as third trial of facts and therefore, unless substantial question of law arises for determination, the second appeal cannot be entertained. SBCSA NO.231/2008– HEMRAJ V/S CHANDMAL SURANA . : ORDER DATED 23.9.2008 3/3 This Court is of the view that from the orders impugned in the present appeal, no substantial question of law arises in respect of shop No.68, situated at Purani Dhanmandi, Sri Ganganagar and the second appeal is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.13 Ss/-