^' \ .^^' ...-••• IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG) CIVIL REVISION N0. t3'9^ OF 2006 PETITIONER: ^efendant /: M/s Moon Light Agency, Proprietor Asan Das Mohnani S/o Hariram Mohnani, aged about 40 years, resident of Sindhi Colony, Infront of Sindhi Dharamshala Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG). VERSUS yKESPONDENT: ^ Plaintiff ^Bhagwan Das S/o Late Shrawan Lal Vishwakarma, aged about 51 years, resident of Block No. 20/B, Plot No. 04 Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai Tahsil and district Durg (CG). MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIYILPROCEDURE CODE XI-HC-22 ^I^T^T t^w^^ii^i ^?NT^^T ^^- ^"^r '^TraRTZ?, '^€t^~TT?,f^Riy ^W^T^W^ . .£^.\....^.:.^Q-y!/^^ rgr"^-l-;'----"-----'3W 200 /. 3?1^T ^ciI^T ^Tft^ 21.03.2006 Smt ftenu Kocher.counsel fw the applicant/defendant. -^TOf^^ ^ f^Zl- ^f^R. '^^?R^1^ Norie for respondent/ptain Heard on aclmission ond M.< Respondent/plaintiff filed| (Rupees ten 1+iousond) against tl'| that applicant took a loan of Rs| from re^ondient towards loan ({ riff. ;C.)P.No.440/2006 for stay. a suit forrecovery of fts.10,000/- e applicant wterfl/w on the ground 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousond) and did not repoy the same. Applifxmt concedes receiving Rs.10,000/- ut pleacted that he has repaid 1+ie amount on 08.08.1998. Leamed lower Court af^er dt» appreciatjon of evidence decreed the suit in favour of re^pondent ond the Ist Appethte Court vide impugned judgment an<dl appr-eckxting the evidence on rec(>rd hefd that the appticant failed to prove repflE/ment of Ks.l0,000/-| assigning reasons. confirmed the| lower Court and clismis^d the Admittedfy. applicant tc| decree ddted 16.01.2006 after to re^)ondent and therefore. after judgment and decree passed by the I. ok a loan of fts.10,000/- from respondent. Burden to prove rep<|yment was on the applicant. The witnesses before whom opplicjont repaid fts.10,000/- were not examined: no receipt to establish repayment has been obtdnedj>y the ^f^ ^. XI-HC-22 ^"r^i'^T ^n^'^n^T -/ ^iNR"^^T \<^» Vjdma ^^r ^TT^T^n, ^WT?, I^TRTy, 3i?^r "^^ WM^II $b^8<^ STI^T^TIsre-Hf?^ Towjards cyplicant from respondent. 022705 issued by theapplifcant below after discreet apprecia'fi reosons did not accept tiie plea into consideration the cdmitted | both the Courts below, I am irregularities has been committejd interference by this Court in its In 1+ie reailt. -riie petitior ond is accordingly dismissed in tin|in In the light of abov|e IA No.1013/2006 stand disposed| ^N^ft^ ^pT^ff "^ ft^t iS^R °^^f^H^T^T security of the loon cheque No< ^ms bounced by the Bank. The Court- ion of evidence <md on OAfficient >f repayment of loan amount. Taking facts as abo concurrent findings of )f the opinion that no illegalily or by the Court below whidi calls for |tevisiorRxljurisdiction, is liable to be distnissediaimmarily tinlime. 'ov|e order, M.(C.)P.No.440/2006 & l|of. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [^^f^, t-i»