Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/25/2010 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 25 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
===========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
===========================================
VIMCO
MINERALS & 5 - Appellant(s)
Versus
UTTAR
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD, HIMMATNAGAR - Defendant(s)
===========================================
Appearance :
MR
BC DAVE for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 6.
None for Defendant(s) :
1,
===========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 10/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Present
Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been preferred by the appellants original defendants challenging
judgment and order dated 29.07.2006 passed by the learned 5th
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Special
Civil Suit No.61 of 1995 confirmed by the learned Appellate Court
vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.38
of 2006 by which learned Trial Court decreed the Suit instituted by
respondent herein original plaintiff for recovery of
Rs.3,21,429.25 paise with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with
costs.
2. Respondent
herein original plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No.61 of
1995 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at
Himatnagar for recovery of Rs.3,21,429.25 paise with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum which was due and payable by the applicants
herein towards bills on minimum charge with effect from 15.03.1993.
Learned Trial Court framed issues at Exh.15. On behalf of the
plaintiff one affidavit affirmed by partner of appellant no.1
Bhikabhai Sagar was filed. On appreciation of evidence, documentary
and oral, learned Trial Court i.e. learned 5th Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar by judgment and decree
dated 29.07.2006 allowed the said Suit and decreed the suit for an
amount of Rs.3,21,429.25 paise with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order dated
29.07.2006 passed in Special Civil Suit No.61 of 1995, appellants
herein original defendants preferred Civil Appeal No.38 of 2006
before the District Court at Himatnagar at Sabarkantha and learned
Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2009
dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed
by the learned Trial Court. Hence, appellants herein original
defendants have preferred present Second Appeal under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Only
submission made on behalf of the appellants herein is that as such
appellants herein were never served with any bills claiming minimum
charges with effect from 15.03.1993 and/or no notice was given to
appellants herein original defendants that sub station is ready.
However, considering affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants,
more particularly affirmed by one Bhikhabhai Sagar partner of
appellant no.1 herein original defendant no.1 it is crystal clear
that as such appellants herein were served with bills claiming
minimum charges with effect from 15.03.1993. Therefore, it cannot be
said that appellants were earlier never informed / served with the
bills claiming minimum charges. It is required to be noted that on
appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below have concurrently
held against appellants herein original defendants on finding of
fact arrived at by both the Courts below.
4. This
Appeal is under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and unless
any substantial question of law arise to be considered by this Court,
present Second Appeal is not required to be entertained and admitted.
As stated above, learned Advocate for the appellants has failed to
show any substantial question of law arise in the present Second
Appeal.
5. In
view of above, there is no substance in the present Second Appeal,
which deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top
