Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/66/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 66 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3316 of 2010
In
SECOND
APPEAL No. 66 of 2010
=========================================
SHRI
ZENITH SPARE CORPORATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
PASCHIM
GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD - Defendant(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
ASHOK YAGNIK for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 07/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-original defendant
challenging the judgement and decree dated 04/08/2007 passed by the
learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot in Small Civil Suit No.
975/2005 confirmed by the learned appellate Court by impugned
judgement and order dated 17/08/2008 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil
Appeal No. 58/2007.
2. The
respondent-original plaintiff instituted suit for recovery of Rs.
15,950/- towards supplementary bill issued against the
appellant-original defendant towards minimum charges for the period
between April, 2002 to July, 2003. At the outset, it is required to
be noted that the appellant-original defendant did not challenge the
bill in question issued by the respondent-original plaintiff for
consumption of minimum charges for the aforesaid period and it is the
respondent-original plaintiff, who instituted the suit for recovery
of the amount under the aforesaid bill and, therefore, the learned
trial Court decreed the suit, which came to be confirmed by the
learned appellate Court.
3. This
is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Unless there is any substantial question of law arising and/or shown
for determination of this Court, Second Appeal is not required to be
entertained. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant-original defendant has failed to show any substantial
question of law arising and/or for determination by this Court in the
present Second Appeal. Even otherwise, considering the fact that
both the Courts below have concurrently found against the
appellant-original defendant and passed the decree of Rs. 15,950/-,
no case is made out to interfere with the judgement and order passed
by both the Courts below in exercise of powers under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no
substance in the present Second Appeal, which deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
CIVIL
APLICATION No. 3316/2010
In
view of the order passed in Second Appeal, no order in the Civil
Application.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top