IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 405 of 2001 Date of Decision : October 19, 2011 Jaspal Singh Setia …Appellant Versus: Anil Verma & Anr. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the appellant: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This regular second appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case plaintiff legally could have obtained the decree against the appellant? 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is based on no evidence?” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. - 2 - 3. Plaintiff Anil Verma (respondent No.1 herein) filed suit for permanent injunction against appellant Jaspal Singh Setia (defendant No.2 therein) and his daughter Jashdeep Setia (defendant No.1 therein). According to the plaintiff, he was married with defendant No.1 on 14.11.1994 as per Hindu customary rites. Apprehending that Jaspal Singh Setia, would solemnize the marriage of his daughter (defendant No.1) with some other person, plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction. 4. On the respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether the defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of plaintiff, as alleged? ……O.P.P. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? ……O.P.P. 3. Whether no legal and valid marriage has taken place between the plaintiff and defendant? …O.P.D. 4.. Whether the suit is not maintainable? …O.P.D. 5. Relief. 5. The Courts below have concurrently held that marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was duly solemnized on 14.11.1994 according to the Hindu customary rites. From the record, it could not be shown as to how these concurrent findings of facts are either erroneous, perverse or not based on the evidence led by the parties. It also cannot be said that the - 3 - Courts below have either mis-interpreted or mis-appreciated the evidence or provisions of law while arriving at such conclusion. 6. As such, defendant No.2, during subsistence of first marriage could not have married his daughter (defendant No.1) with any other person. In view of the same, the appeal stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 19, 2011 (rana)