1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.692 OF 2008 Namdev B. Dhore .. Petitioner Versus Gorakh G. Shelke & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Nitin Deshpande for petitioner CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th February 2008 P.C. . The only contention raised by Mr.Deshpande to challenge the order of lower appellate Court is that the lower appellate court’s conclusion on point No.1 is totally erroneous and vitiated. Point No.1 that is 2 framed by the lower appellate court is that "whether the petitioner appellant/original opponent No.1 proves that the loan in question was advanced to partnership firm and not to him individually". 2. With the assistance of Mr.Deshpande, I have perused the concurrent findings rendered on this issue/point. Courts below have rightly held that the burden was upon the petitioner to prove this fact. Insofar as bank is concerned, it has clearly contended that the loan was given independently to the petitioner/original opponent No.1. He was carrying on business in the name and style of Kalyan Traders. The loan was sanctioned on 22nd June 1984 and original opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were the guarantors. Credit facility was granted to the petitioner individually for his business and this facet is corroborated by Exh.47 to 53. In such circumstances, it is not possible to accede to 3 the submission of Mr.Deshpande that the loan was sanctioned to the partnership firm and that absence of partners to the dispute is fatal. 3. The concurrent finding is based upon materials produced. It is consistent with the oral and documentary evidence. This is not a court of further appeal which can re-appraise and re-appreciate such materials. Petition, therefore, is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)