Javerchand Vs. Basant Kumar

civil procedure code - section 100--no substantial question of law involved--finding of both lower courts are findings of fact-- held, no interference under section 100 is required.;the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the finding arrived at by both the courts below are purely findings of facts and does not require any interference under section 100 c.p.c.;appeal dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. b.r. arora, j.1. heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and record of the case. after going through the judgment and record of the case, i am of the opinion, that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the finding arrived at by both the courts below are purely findings of facts and does not require any interference under section 100 c.p.c.2. the appeal filed by the appellant does not involve any substantial question of law and has got no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. however, the appellant is granted six months time from today to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question provided he files a written under-taking in the trial court that he will handover the vacant possession of the shop in question on or before 5th sept.1991. the appellant is allowed one months time to submit the under-taking in the trial court. if the under-taking is not submitted by the appellant before the trial court within one month from today then the respondent will be at liberty to get the decree executed.