IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 189 of 2007. Date of Decision: April 24, 2008. ________________________________________________________________ Tek Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Uttam Ram … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi dated 2.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 65/2004/178/2005 whereby he has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent- plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,600/- plus interest and costs. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had borrowed - 2 - a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him in April, 1998. Thereafter the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/- on 2.6.1998 in favour of the plaintiff for repayment of the said amount. When the cheque was presented to the bank, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the defendant. The plaintiff had earlier filed a petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was dismissed in default. The defendant contested the suit and the main defence raised was that he had not borrowed Rs.10,000/- and that the cheque for Rs.10,000/- had been issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for purchase of 10 scants of deodar wood and since the plaintiff had failed to supply the wood, no amount was due from the defendant. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the allegations. The plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed. A second appeal in respect of a suit the valuation of which does not exceeds Rs.20,000/- is barred under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:- “102. No Second appeal in certain cases:--- No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter - 3 - of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty- five thousand rupees.” The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri G.R.Palsra learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant is at pains to urge that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is against law and facts of the case. I have given my careful consideration to the entire case. The learned lower appellate Court has decided the case on a pure finding of fact. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the present petition. Appreciation of evidence has to be done by the trial Court and the first appellate court. The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are only supervisory in nature and cannot be used as substitute for an appeal. Since no question of law arises in the petition, I am not inclined to look into the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. April 24, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. s.