l.^\5:l^ ^AppeUajit /Plaintiff IN 'mE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT^ILASPUR CPv/IL RE^SIQN NO.fO,^ / 2004 /'^ .<\>w /._,..._^_.._.^ / Jai Maa Shaj-da Medicose Throzigh Proprietor Anil KumsT Gupts- S/o Late Hajajrolai Gupta, Aged about 45 yeaTS, R/o Manendragarh, Tahsil Mariendragarh, Dist : Korea-(C,G,) y^l^*1 ^^ .J^< ^A^'" ^^" ^- , Verszis ^"^ Respondent ° : ^efendQnt 4, Baderia Medical Store Through /^ Proprietor Suresh ChajTidra Baderia S/o late Jagdi^h Prasad Baderia, Aged about 51 yeaTS, R/o Main MaTket Baikuntpur, Tahsil Baikuntpur, Dist : Korea-(C.G.) CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE '^^^S^i^SSs^^S^^^^^s^^^^^^ .—^^._^.^^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hoii'bte Prashant Civil Revlssori No. 10S of Jai Versus Baderia Mecllcal Store ORDER PostforAo-07-^ \"r' Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra 1 Judge ~^= ,^s /^^ ^^ ^S^^y^ N;' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR Sloale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justlce Prashant Kumar APPELLANT RESPQNOENT ClviS Revislon No. 105 of Jal Maa Sharda Versus Baderia Medlcal Store GIVIL REViStON PETtTION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Shri Prafuti N.8harat, counset forthe applicant. Shri Shaktlraj Sinha, counse! forthe non-appiicant. O^RDER ^o .87.2010) Heard. (2) This Is ptajntlffs revsston ynder Sectlon 115 of CP.C. chaltenging the judgment and decree by two Courts below hls sult against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,062/-. (3) The pSaintsff preferred the suft for recovery of Rs. 5,062/- on the pteadlngs that the plalntlff te a and the defendasit Is a retall seiier of medicines. The medSclnes from the ptaintlff In the 1996-97 the purchased medlclnes vaSued at Rs.12,882/-, out of vAlch he made payments of Rs. 7,8^)/- and a sum of Rs. 5,062/- to be paid by hlm. The defendsnt paid Rs. 1463^- for the last on 27-09-1996, however the said the defendant did not make payment of the amoynt in spite of several remlnders. (3) Accordlng to the defendant ptalntlffs employees to orders by vlsltlng his shop at Baikunthpur and dellver the at Balkunthpur. They to coKect the payments from Baitainthpur ap.d receipts for the same were subsequentty issued. The .^ Hte^ga^ ^' ^ '^^^''^"f .& ^ ""'""" ^ •':y '^^^^' ^\ that he has recelved any medicine blSt No. 405 24-(^-1995 for Rs. 1,814^- and blll No. 485 07-07-19^ for Rs. 1,386^-. He aSso that the openlng balance has wrongly been shown and that he has not made any payment on 27-09-1996 but has the amount on 23-09-1996. The triai Court dismissed the sult after holdlng that the plaintlff has falled to proof that any amount is balance and yet to be recovered from the defendant. The triat Court held that the sult Is by llmitation. The appetlate Gourt has confsrmed the 3nd has dismlssed the fsrst bythe applicant. (4) The present sylt has fiied on 25-(^-1999. Accordlng to the plalntlff slnce the Sast payment was made by the defendant on 27-09-1996 the sult has been ft!ed wlthln three years and as such the suit is within llmltatson. In hls written statement as we!t as In hls the defendant had denied that any payment on 27-09-1996. He that he pald Rs. 1,463/- to the on 23-09-1996, the sult is by §sIt no% presented wlthln from 23-09-1996. Ex. P/2 C is account for the period 01-04-1995 to 30-03-1996 v/hereln the suit amount has been shown to be outstanding as closinQ balance on 30-03-1996. In Ex. P/3 C two transactlons have been shown for Rs, 6,357/- and Rs. 1,463/- and both payments been made in cash, (5) Ex.P/6 C Is the recelpt In whlch signature of the defendant is not available. Further the appellate Court has appreciated the document Ex.D/2, copy of the ledger submltted by the defendant In which It has mentloned that as against the purchase made on 20-08-1996 the i-amount has been paid on 23-09-1996. Thus both the Courts have !'" ^-^•.-&^-% •^ -s^^' " %. ^'l'^ carefutly examlned the evsdence avaiiable on recorcl and have recorded a finctlng of fact that tast payment was made bythe defendant to the ptaintlff on 23-09-1996 and the su'rt having not been submttted wlthln three there from Is barred by llmitatton. (6) Thls Court, upon examinatlon of the record, Is that the flndings of fact recorded by the Courts belcM' regarding the last payment on 23^)9-1996 te not perverse. It Is QH appredgtion of evldence. Thte Court in exercise of pc^ver under Sectlon 115 of C.P.C. cannot findsng of fact recorded by the two Courts betow. (7) In the resutt thls Court that the Courts not Gommitted any illegal'rty or matertat srreguiarity whlle dismlsslng the ptetntiffs sult for recovery of Rs.5,062. There is no good ground to interfere with ttie judgment renctered by the Courts be!ow. Thls therefore, falls and is hereby dismissed. prashantKumar Judge Misbra K<.