1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1589 OF 2008 Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Limited ........Appellants versus Tejkumar Bhandari ........ Respondent. Mr. Atul P. Vanarase for the Appellants Mr. S.P. Kadam for the respondent CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 01st DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Vanarase learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kadam for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. Respondent's suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 63,386/- was decreed with 6 % interest on the principal amount of Rs.50,913/- from the date of filing of the suit. The said decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court in an appeal at the instance of the present appellant. 2. Mr. Vanarse learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the document at Exh.44, 46 to 60 are the zerox copies of the daily report and therefore same should not have 2 been considered in the absence of any proof of loss of original. This submission is without any merit in view of the concurrent finding of the lower courts below that the appellant/defendant admitted that he retained an amount of Rs. 50,913/- i.e. Principal amount which was due and payable to the respondent/plaintiff. I have perused the averment of the appellant/defendant in the written statement and found that the above observations of the lower courts below is correct. It was defence of the appellant/respondent that the retained amount was adjusted in incomplete defective work. This contention however negatived by the lower courts below in the absence of any evidence to that effect. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, Civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 4. At this stage Mr. Vanarase learned counsel for the appellant seeks stay of this order for a period of three weeks. This request is opposed by Mr. Kadam learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned decree is money decree, therefore in my view request for stay cannot be granted. (R.V. More, J.)