FA/1652/1981 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1652 of 1981 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 76 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= LAXMANBHAI H PARMAR - Appellant(s) Versus PADMABEN J DAVE - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HB SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MS MONA B RAVAL for Defendant(s) : 1, (MR MF THAKKER) for Defendant(s) : 1, MR PM VYAS for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 27/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants-original plaintiff has FA/1652/1981 2/3 JUDGMENT challenged the judgment and order dated 26/3/1981 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.16 of 1978 whereby the learned Judge has allowed the suit in favour of plaintiff and directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.811.51 with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the suit till payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a building contractor sued the defendant whose bungalow the plaintiff has constructed, for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs.8326.89 plus interest and notice charges (in all Rs.9097.89). In this summary suit, in reply to the summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiff the defendant filed affidavit vide Exh.13 praying for leave to defend the suit which is eventually treated as written statement to the suit. After hearing the parties the Trial Court has passed the decree as aforesaid against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the Trial Court has considered the evidence on record and discussed the matter at length. While considering the case of the present appellant, the Trial Court after discussing issue nos. 1 to 4, came to the conclusion that the outstanding amount was FA/1652/1981 3/3 JUDGMENT Rs.811.51. The conclusion arrived at is that the defendant is found owing to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.811.51 and a decree in the said sum was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Learned advocate for the appellant is not able to point out anything from the record that the said decree is illegal and arbitrary. Even otherwise claim involved in the matter is less then Rs.25,000/- and this being a petty claim the same cannot be entertained. 5. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. No case is made out to interfere with the matter. 6. In the premises, First Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. As the First Appeal is disposed of, Cross Objection No.76 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)