^ r^9 IN TPIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR civiiRevisionNo.^ /2oo5 Siogfe Sench REVISIONIST (DEFENDANT) ..••"r- rf' Buinit Sharma, S/o. Krishna Gopal Shanna, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Bajrang Hotel, Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ^' RESPONDENT /Shankar Singh, S/o. Late Kamta <(PLAINTIFF) Singh, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Gaurinagar, Near Talab, Masjid Gali, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). CIVIL REVISION UNDERSECTION U5 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. .-(^iif.C XI-HC-22 NIHMTsnilth :ssf ^wivftf, »Tn+i'i<s, R|(-IIU^< 3)1^1 lach ^.c^.,.Jd..., H^ 200^ [d^ an^r^r f^iwan^r Sb1 Hfer aii^l (WlWfff^T +i<)f<vi41-f t<it<i-i1'fftec^(RRCTt ^?3rf^lT3T1^r 0?/03/2005 Shri Anup Mazumdar coun^el for the applicant. The applicant/defendant judgment and decree dated Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal judgment and decree dated 10.. Rajnandgaon in Chril Suit No. appUcant/plaintiff was decreed fo^ at ttie rate of 6 per cent per annur|n t^as preferred this revision against the 17.1.2005 passed by District Judge, ^lo. 2-B12WM thereby confirming the .P.2004 passed by CMI Judge Class II 1P-B/2003 by which the sutt of the non- a sum of Rs. 2,158/- alohg wifti interest ifrom 5.12.2002. tie Learned counsel for the| decree has been passedby botti defence of the applicant that the as he was a Conductor by pr^f decree underchallenge is based) diary allegedly maintained by evidence as the same dic) applicanVdefendant. According impugned decree Is based on reply to the legal noUce served| money for the milk supplied. Relypng in the matter ofVinod Kumar thle applicant submits that the impugned |the Courts below without considering the Islaintiff was not engaged in mBk VCTiding tfession. He further submitted that the on some unauthenticated entries in ttie plaintiff which is not admissible in not bear the signature of the |to the counsel for the appticant the presumption that the applicant did not on him by the plaintiff demanding the on the decision of the Supreme Court Vs. Smt Surjit Kaur reported in AIR Arbra (^y^r) BT' XI-HC-22 3^ -^ww^, vn!\WI&, Rjcfl'My HWWI shii<*i 3TI^ ^.c^. ?Tiath ^ 2«0 S sn^T^ir R-fi'sb-W^T SD»l CTt^(T 311^1 ^wiWHl^ir «hi<if<n41-itiiNiiT^'te^t'<Ri«i< ^sri^iTan^r 1987 SC 2179 and in the m^tter Mohanlal Bhagwandas and submits that the instant revision I Code of Civil Procedure and appellate Court conflrming the jtidgr Court is revisable. of Keshavlal Jettialal Shah Vs. afiother reported in AIR 1968 SC 1336, |is maintainable under section 115 of the judgment and decree passed by the jtidgment and decree passed by the frial ttte fttr 1 have heard counsel judgment and decree passed b^ below afterconsidering the adduced by the parties have concurrent finding of fact that th|e to the applicant/defendant and maintained by the plaintiff in th|e maintained bythe plaintiff, the to time has also been recordey served upoh the defendant/appl) milk supplied to him which was| thus the suit of the plaintiff has below further recorded a findin^ statement of the plaintiff regardijig discrepancy in the statement of t|ie the applicant and gone through the both the Coute below. Both the Courts mat^riat available on record and the evidence rrived at fte conclusion by recording a th|e non-applicant/plaintiff supplied ttie milk (he same was ateo entered in the diary th|e coutSe of buslness. In tfte sald diary p|ayment made by the applicant from time and a detailed legal notice was also jcant calling upon him to pay price of the |not even replied to by the applicant and decreed on this premise. The Courts ttiat but for minor discrepancies in the the amount payable, there is no other plaintHT and thus deereed the suit. Ueen (-fl^y^) XI-HC-22 3^ '<11<<ICI<1, KI-rflfl'IS, [e|c1Wy *11*l(TTS»>*<|cb sn^r t^-f^s-X' l-l^f) Wi; 200r~ sn^rqiT f^iwa'n^T shUiAtlRd .^eAriL 3n^T^<(RKfl1?cr Scopeof interference by the| under section 115 of the CPC is ve|ry not find that the Courts below hav|e irregularity white exercising the judgment and decree does not call Vpr High Court exercising the jurisdicUon limited and in the instant case 1 do committed any illegality or materiat jurisdiction and thus the impugned t>r any interference by thls Court. q'rata^r WRffif fec^ ^RSTC ^sri^q'sn^r 6Q005 and IA No. 209/2005 stand Accordingly, the revision p6|tition has r»o merit and the same is dismissed. Consequently, MCPNo. 1 disposedof [ Dhirendra Mishra Judge