^ 8:^v° ^•f^ ir ^^> a»> -a o -u ^ & •'£_: 05 t3 a: s 4 o= <£ <§ IN THE HON'BLE HI&H COURT OF CHHATTCSSARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. ^^ r. /2007 !a1@ Beii! i fe^ §S? VaiS^ APPELLANT Pl^INTIFF ^~ RESPONDENTS &EFENDANTS 2] 3] dt^^ 'Kesallal (Keslal) S/o. Bhuwan Tiwari, Aged about 57 years, R/o. Dargaon, Tahsil &hamdha, District Durg (C6) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, t)urg, District Durg (C6) Collector, Durg, District Ciurg (C6) Leos Khujur, Vikas Khand Adhikari, Additional Tahsildar, bhamdha, District Durg (C6) SECOND_APPEAL UNDER SECTTON 100 OF CObE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE K saa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Second ADDeal No.492 of 2007 Kesallal (Keslal) versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER Postfor 14-7-2010 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^ HIGH^OURT^OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant KumarMishra Second Appeal No.492 of 2007 Appellant Respondents versus Kesallal (Keslal) State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ORDER (Passed onJ4^July, 2010) The instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed by the Courts below. The plaintiff claimed a decree that the proceedings for recovery initiated against him js illegal and the same be cancelled and the defendants be restrained from making any recovery from the plaintiff. 2. It was the case of the plaintiff that at the relevant time hfrwas the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dargaon. After dissolution of the Panchayat, the affairs of the Panchayat were looked into by the defendant No.2 Collector under whose instruction the defendant No.3 'Block Development Officer was directed to take care of the Panchayat. iiif[t:ri!'F~::iT 2. The accounts of the Panchayat were handed over to the administrator on 30-4-1990 and 11-10-1990, however, the defendant No.2 conducted revaluation of the work conducted by the Panchayat during the period when the plaintiff was Sarpanch wherein it was found that a sum of Rs.56,000/- was to be recovered from the plaintiff. On the plaintiffs objection, the work was again valued though in the absence of the plaintiff and a recovery of Rs.22,000/- was issued. The plaintiff objected to the same on 10-4-1991, however, the recovery continued and in the said process the cattles belonging to the plaintiff were attached. The said attachment being contrary to law was illegal. According to the plaintiff, he has completed the work and accounts were submitted while handing over charge and he owes nothing and no recovery can be made against him. He also submitted that the revaluation conducted in his absence was illegal. 3. In their written statement, the defendants stated that the revaluation was done on the application/objection of the plaintiff. On final calculation, as shown in paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of the written statement, it was stated that a sum of Rs.10,966/- was to be recovered from the plaintiff. By way of amendment in the written statement, it was stated that for another work relating to construction of additional room in the Middle School, Dargaon, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned, however, on valuation, it was found that the plaintiff has not executed the work for Rs.14,118.80. Thus, the total recovery was Rs.25,084.80. 4. At the end of trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 23-1-2001 after finding that the "f'- 3 proceedings for recovery initiated against the plaintiff was well-founded and the plaintiff has failed to prove that the recovery is illegal. The trial Court, after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the judgment, has come to the conclusion that the objection raised by the plaintiff regarding valuation and revaluation are not tenable on the ground that the valuation Ex.D-17 was conducted by the Sub-Engineer against which the plaintiff did not raise objection by moving any application before the Collector. Further, it was found that the plaintiff has not brought any evidence on record by which it can be said that the valuation of the work, as determined by the Sub-Engineer, was contrary to facts or was perverse. It was also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the entire amount advanced/disbursed to him has been used in the construction. 5. The appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The appellate Court has again appreciated the evidence available on record and after detailed discussion in paragraphs 12 to 19 of the appellate judgment, the appellate Court has found that the findings recorded by the trial Court are born out from the evidence on record and are not perverse. The appellate Court has also observed that in view of the statement made in the written statement that the defendants are not proceeding to recover the amount from the cattles and agricultural equipments belonging to the plaintiff, the contention of the plaintiff that such procedure of recovery is illegal, is not open for adjudication. 6. Thus, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded this .finding that the valuation made by the Sub-Engineer was correct and '^ ^i the plaintiff has failed to prove that the recovery was illegal. These findings are pure findings of fact. The appellanVplaintiff has not been able to point out any defect or perversity in the valuation or in the judgment passed by the Courts below. 7. In State Bank of India and others vs. S.N.Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92, in paragraph 13 ofthe report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as to what is a substantial question of law. Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any substantial question of law arising for determination in this appeal. Consequently, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. / prashantKumarMishra Judge Gopal