s0 HJGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR C!VLLEEVJS10NN0.24PF_2007 Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri DsSip Raosa»liebDeshmukh, J. APPUCANT PLAINTSFF NON-APPLICANT DEFENDANT Maangi Lal aged about 71 years S/o Shri Champa La! Jain; Occupation Farming and Shop Keeper, R/o Tuteli-Kala Teh. Chhuikhadan; Dist. Rajn^ndgaon (Chhattisgarh) Versus Gangu Ram aged about 47 years S/o Patwari @ Bhagirathi Tandon R/o Viliage Seetadabri; Presently Residing in Shyampur Tahsii Chhuikhadan; Dist. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) CIVIL REViSION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CIViL PROCEDURE, 1908 Present:- Shri R.N.Jha, counsel for the appeiiant. ORALORDER (Passed on 20tn June, 2007) Heard on admission. ~Y (2) A suit for recovery of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of grains and cioth supplied to the defendant was dismissed by the Civil Judge Ciass-1, Khairagarh vide judgment and decree dated 28-04-2005 in Civil Suit No.11-B of 2003. Civil Appeal No.3-8 of 2005 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon vide judgment and decree dated 17-11-2006. (3) Both the Courts below have heid that aithough grains were advanced to the defendant on 1 8-06-2001 yet on that day no document was got executed. On 17-08-2001, a document was got executed showing loan of grains and ciothes worth Rs.900/- to the defendant. __ -31 (4) Both the Courts beiow on proper appreciation of evidence heid that the document got executed by the defendant on 17-08-2001 is highly suspicious document. No reason has been assigned as to why the receipt was not executed on the date of advancement of loan of grains. The plaintiff has admitted in his testimony that on 13-03-2001, the defendant had returned Rs.SOO/- towards the cost of cloth borrowed from the plaintiff. No explanation was offered as to why this was not endorsed on the receipt Ex.P.1. The conciusion drawn by both the Courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not caii for any interferencetn exercise of revisionaijurisdiction. (5) In the resuit, the Civll Revision being without substance is dismissed at the stage of admisslon. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^" r