( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2009 Parshuram Education Society Chiplun ..Appellant V/s. Murlidhar Namdev Pawar ..Respondent ...... Mr.S.M. Railkar for the appellant ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent for recoery of moneis as set out in the plaint to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/- in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Ratnagiri for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. According to the appellant the said amount was paid to the respondent ( 2 ) by way of excess monies. This is being stated on background that the respondent could have been paid Rs.16,50,000/- Three eye witnesses came to be examined in support of the case of the appellant and it is admitted and specifically mentioned in paragraph No.8 that the documents at Exhibit Nos.49 to 74 came to be produced by the appellant to show that sum of Rs.3,65,605/- was paid to the respondent. This would clearly go to show that the appellant has not been able to discharge the burden to show that the appellant has paid to the respondent a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, which has been a principle case of the appellant. 2. The appellant had the benefit of full dressed trial and despite that after the arguments commenced, the appellant possibly realized that he has not been able to prove their case and hence moved the learned Judge for production of certain documents. That application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by passing order by observing that the said application was filed after the substantial arguments had commenced. This rejection of the said application is also challenged in this appeal. 3. After having considered the entire record, it is clear that the appellant did not place before the ( 3 ) Court the agreement on the basis of which the respondent was to construct the building and was to receive a sum of Rs.16,50,000/-. Appellant also did not produce before the Court documentary evidence to show that the sum of Rs.19,00,000/- was paid instead of a sum of Rs.16,50,000/-. Documents were produced to show that only a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and odd was paid to the respondent. If this is the position, so far as the factual aspect the observations of the learned Trial Judge are correct. 4. Hence, the appellants’ case that the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- and has received an amount in excess of that cannot be accepted. 5. It is also requried to be mentioned that the appellants have not placed before the Court the appropriate record to show that the respondent was to get a particular amount under the terms of the contract. The documents at Exibits 49 to 74 go to indicate that what was paid to the respondent was in the nature of labour charges. If this is be so, the documents placed before the Court different picture than what is contended in the suit. If the respondent was to receive only labour charges the case of the appellants that the respondent was to construct ( 4 ) building as per agreement is not made out. 6. After having considered the impugned judgment and arguments advanced across the bar, I am of the view tha the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge are correct and he has taken a proper view of the entire matter. No interference is requried and as such the appeal is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order :- ORDER ORDER ORDER . The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)