IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.336 of 2004 Date of decision: 9.12.2010 Khem Bhadur …. Petitioner Versus Mathru ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Kullu passed in Civil Appeal No.1/04 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu allowing the suit filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,000/- against the defendant on the ground that 2 the fruit crop of the orchard belonging to the defendant was sold to him for a period of five years, i.e., from 1999 to 2003, for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- but the defendant interfered and prevented him from harvesting the crop after December, 2001 and thereby caused a loss of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court but the learned Lower Appellate Court in the appeal set aside the finding of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the suit. 3. Under Section 100, CPC, a second appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Section 102, CPC specifically provides that no second appeal is maintainable in a suit, value whereof is less than Rs.25,000/-. The provisions of Section 100 and 102, CPC cannot be circumvented by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An appeal is only a creation of the statute and the legislature in its wisdom has decided that second appeal will not lie in a suit valuation of which is less than 25000/-. There is no occasion to entertain a CMPMO unless it is shown that some illegality is involved or there is some perversity in the finding of 3 the learned Trial Court. In the present case, I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. I find that both the judgments are based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore do not call for any interference in this petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. December 9, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge