1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.126/2009. (Mool Singh Vs. Babu Lal) DATE OF ORDER : May 18, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Sajjan Singh/Mr. J.K. Bhaiya for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Civil Appeal No.109/07 (16/03), whereby, the learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bhim in Civil Original Suit No.9/99, by which, the trial Court passed decree for recovery of Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% with effect from 06.05.1996. According to the facts, the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs.23,100/- out of which Rs.15,000/- was principal amount and and Rs.8,100/- was interest claimed. According to facts of the case, the plaintiff- 2 respondent is pursuing business of selling silver ornaments and, as per the plaintiff, vide bill No.2137 dated 06.05.1996 the defendant-petitioner purchased silver ornaments weighing 2229 gm but payment of the said bill was not made by him, therefore, it was prayed in the suit that decree for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest assessed at Rs.8,100/- with effect from the date of purchase by the petitioner- defendant may be passed. Learned trial Court, after framing five issues and taking oral as well as documentary evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. I have perused the judgment of the trial Court in which adjudication is made issue-wise upon the evidence coming on record, so also, judgment of the appellate Court in which the appellate Court after discussing the entire evidence thoroughly arrived at the concurrent finding that the defendant-petitioner purchased the silver ornaments from the plaintiff-respondent and did not make payment of the bill thereof. Upon careful consideration of both the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that there is no perversity or illegality in the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate 3 Court because the plaintiff-respondent proved his case before the trial Court that the petitioner purchased silver ornaments and did not pay the price. Thus, there is no force in this revision petition and no interference is called for in the concurrent finding arrived at by both the learned Courts below. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.