1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.126/2009.
(Mool Singh Vs. Babu Lal)
DATE OF ORDER : May 18, 2009.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
____________________________________
Mr. Sajjan Singh/Mr. J.K. Bhaiya for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT :
This revision petition is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 passed by the
Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Civil Appeal
No.109/07 (16/03), whereby, the learned appellate Court
affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2007
passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bhim in Civil Original
Suit No.9/99, by which, the trial Court passed decree for
recovery of Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7%
with effect from 06.05.1996.
According to the facts, the plaintiff-respondent filed
suit for recovery of Rs.23,100/- out of which Rs.15,000/-
was principal amount and and Rs.8,100/- was interest
claimed. According to facts of the case, the plaintiff-
2
respondent is pursuing business of selling silver ornaments
and, as per the plaintiff, vide bill No.2137 dated
06.05.1996 the defendant-petitioner purchased silver
ornaments weighing 2229 gm but payment of the said bill
was not made by him, therefore, it was prayed in the suit
that decree for recovery of the principal amount of
Rs.15,000/- along with interest assessed at Rs.8,100/-
with effect from the date of purchase by the petitioner-
defendant may be passed.
Learned trial Court, after framing five issues and
taking oral as well as documentary evidence, decreed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
I have perused the judgment of the trial Court in
which adjudication is made issue-wise upon the evidence
coming on record, so also, judgment of the appellate Court
in which the appellate Court after discussing the entire
evidence thoroughly arrived at the concurrent finding that
the defendant-petitioner purchased the silver ornaments
from the plaintiff-respondent and did not make payment of
the bill thereof.
Upon careful consideration of both the impugned
judgments passed by the Courts below, I am of the opinion
that there is no perversity or illegality in the finding arrived
at by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate
3
Court because the plaintiff-respondent proved his case
before the trial Court that the petitioner purchased silver
ornaments and did not pay the price. Thus, there is no
force in this revision petition and no interference is called
for in the concurrent finding arrived at by both the learned
Courts below.
Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.