C' Sr. No. . .Date .._.. - , .. - . Orders * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.. + RSA 176/2003 & CM Nos. 587 -.588/2003 .NARENDRA PRASAD MATHIJR .. ..... Appellant Through Mr.Dinesh KGupta, Advocate. versus D.D.A. . . Respondent Through CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.S. SODHI. ORDER 17.i02003 This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and order . dated . l August, 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, in RCA No. 133/2000, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred againsL the judgment and decree dated 3 August, 2000, passed by the Sub Judge, Delhi in Suit N0.390/1990. The appellant herein wants to raise fresh issues before me. The same cannot be permitted as the Supreme Court in corttd.. ..2/- 0 S 11 #4 fl SHRI SHYAM SALES 02-03 Signing Date:02.01.2025 17:21:21 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Sr No Date Orders -2- RJSA 176/2003 Kortdlba Dagadu Kadarn Vs. SavitrThai Sopan Gujar & Ors., JT C't1 11' 4 1 L.. 1 _1 1.L iii o; .io.t nas iieiu uiai . . "in a case where from a given set of circwiistaices two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower 0 appellate court is binding on the High. Court in second appeal. Adopting any other. approach is. not peniiisib1e The High Court cajinot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court ulness it is iound that we conclusions urawri by We lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory ptovisioiis of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made . by the . apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence." in view of the above, RSA 176/2003 is dismissed. Consequently, CM Nos. 587 - 588/2003 a]stand dismissed. R.S. OCTOBERl7 2003 . 0 bp •i• 1•. .... .. SHRI SHYAM SALES 02-03