1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.224 OF 2010 Mohammed Ayyub Amjad ..Appellant Vs. Mohammed Hanif Abdul Hameed ..Respondent ......... Mr.Abdul Rab, for appellant. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 21st JUNE, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 30 th September, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Malegaon, District Nashik in Civil Appeal No.128 of 2003 arising from the judgment dated 4 th September, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon, in Special Civil Suit No.69 of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the courts below dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of Rs.1,00,829/- towards arrears payment in respect of goods sold on credit and interest thereon. 3] Mr.Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below committed serious error in not accepting that under the agreement 224-10.sxw 2 wherein the respondent had agreed to pay amount of Rs.1,00,829/- which was towards the goods sold by the appellant. The said agreement is proved and, therefore, the judgments passed by the courts below are vitiated. 4] From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that basically the courts below came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish any transaction entered into between him and the defendant. This aspect is considered by the trial Court in paragraph 21. In so far as the appellate court is concerned, in paragraph no.7 of the impugned judgment, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish that he was running cloth business and was holding Shop Act License and was issuing the bills as required. The appellant has also failed to prove the sale and purchase transactions between the parties to claim arrears of Rs.1,00,829/-. 5] After considering the material on record, I do not find that the judgments passed by the courts below are perverse or based upon no evidence. The findings of facts are based upon the evidence. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to the costs. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 224-10.sxw