HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. 174/2006 APPLICANT DEFENDANT NON-APPLICANT/ DEFENDANT Dharam, S/o Shri Mangal Gond, aged about 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o village Borai, Tehsil Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Mangilal, S/o Late Shri Champalal Jain, aged about 71 years, Occupation - Agriculture and Business, R/o village Kutelikala, Tehsil - Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) ^) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for the applicant. Shri Rudranath Mukharjee, Adv. for non-applicant. ORAL ORDER (7-4-2010) Per N.K. Afi[arwal«J 1. Heard on admission. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 5th July, 2006 passed the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 2-B/2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30-3- 2005 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Khairagarh in Civil Suit No. 15-B/2002, the instant revision ha8 been preferred by the defendant/ applicant. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest against the defendant/ applicant based on one receipt. The trial Court framed 4 issues; recorded findings that the applicant executed the receipt on 3-10-99, received an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, did not return it to the plaintiff; the document is not forged, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the transaction appears to be prohibited under Section 12(2) of Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharkon Ko Udhar Dene Valon Ke Bhumi Hadapani Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976.-There-against, the ^ 8. 9. plaintiff preferred appeal. Learned appellate Court recorded a finding that the applicant did not take the plea of ^ \ r)y applicability of above Act; the case pleaded by the applicant /defendant was that the said receipt is forged and fabricated and as such learned trial Court was notjustified in passing its judgment upon recording a finding which has no foundation in the pleading, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the applicant would contend that it is trite law that once both the parties have led evidence whether issue has been framed or not looses its importance and the appellate Court had erred in decreeing the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the Court below and the judgment and decree impugned. Indisputably the finding recorded by the trial Court is based on appreciation of evidence. It is also trite law that no amount of evidence can'be looked into without pleading. No such case has been pleaded by the defendant. The case pleaded by the defendant has already been turned down by the trial Court, as such, learned appellate Court was not wrong in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and in decreeing the suit. It is trite law that under revisional jurisdiction, this Court should not interfere in the finding of fact unless the same is per^erse, illegal or based on no evidence. Since the finding of fact in the instant case recorded by the appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or based on no evidence, therefore, I do not find any substance in the revlslon. The revision being without substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge