.^ l^ ^' ZN 2HE HI@H e6)ORT 01? JBBXCATtiBB AT Bl&ASPUR (.68) OtvAl sevislon So. C''9 ®f20 ( * * i ^.i( iSi ( HanorsaaduB os cd.vil RevisAon JS/s 115 of C.P.e. ) PBTTS'ItaisfEK /BEiFiSBSANT ^BaRstai &al Qtoiahgn i^'o ^iri. Baitari <aiotUian» sgeS about 70 year's/ r/o flhbo'te Attaamuda Ratgarh, Tehsll aaS TS.s-tadc-b EaigEtrto (C®). • / /' veffstis SajsrKara singh Ajmani s^o satfts ^.ngh A}maR1* ageel aiaout 31 years*' resldeRt of Banglapara Ghltecadhar Nagar fiai^arli • "Ce&s2.1 aaa Btstric-t Raigaito • ( PLMNIIFS' ) a»e Sfcate @f ghha'fct.isgarta droagfa fhe aslleetorjRaigarh CDEB'ENBWE N0.2 ) MaiOKANDIM 8F CIVII. BEVISI®(KDER SBe'E'I Oi'"115 Qf C.P.C. ; HIGILCOURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Civil Revision No. 9/200S Banshi Lal Chouhan Versus Rajendra Singh Ajinani and another ^ SB:- HON'BLESHRLN.K^AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri H.S. Patel, Advocate, for applicant. Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. QRAL ORDER (10-1-2011) 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.8-A/2004. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for specific performar-ce of contract against the defendant/applicant herein inter alia on the ground that the respondent entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant vide Ex. P-1 for a total coiisideration of Rs. 24,416/- and paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance. Later on vide Ex. P-2, the respondent paid Rs. 14,416/- and it was agreed upon between the parties that the sale deed shall be executed before November, 1999 by the applicant after getting Rs. 5,000/- i.e. the balance amount of consideration. Further the respondent had also paid balance amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/- but the applicant/ defendant denied to execute the sale deed. Written statement was filed by the defendant denying the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of consideration. 3. Learned trial Court on a close scrutiny of the submissions IBade, material placed and evidence led, refused to grant decree for specific performance of contract. However, a decree for refund of advance of Rs. 5,000/- was passed. Both the parties went in appeal. The appellate court dismissed the applicants appeal and allowed the respondents' appeal and instead of Rs. 5,000/-, a decree ofRs.24,416/- was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree of the appellate court, the instant revision has been preferred as the decretal amount is less than 25,000/- and second appeal is barred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below and the record of the case. While cross-examining Rajendra Singh (P.W. 1), specific suggestion has been made in para 9 of his statement that the applicant/defendant has refunded the total amount mentioned in Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-3. This suggestion speaks of receipt of the amount through Ex. P-l, P-2 and P-3. It is not in dispute that so far as the refund of amount is concerned, the applicant has failed to prove the same. Learned first appellate court held, the claim was not time barred as in the agreement tp sell entered into vide Ex. P-1, no time was prescribed and immediately after a period of l years, Ex. P-2 was executed in which time for execution of sale deed is mentioned as upto November, 1999 and then in the year 1999, further Rs. 5000/- has been received by the applicant and the suit was filed on 11-7-2002 which was indisputably within time. Money decree instead of decree for specific performance of contract was passed and Rs. 24,410/- has been directed to be refunded. The above finding is essentially a finding of fact based on evidence adduced in the case. After going through the evidence and material placed on record, I do not find any jurisdictional illegality, irregularity, perversity or absurdity in the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. In the absence of such jurisdictional infirmity, this Court has no option bUt to dismiss the revision. The revision is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge