i HIGHCOURTOFCHHAT"nSGARH,JBU..ASPUR APPLIGANT/: (Plaintiff) Civil ReiviSiOn No.194of 2008 Chhabeshwar Das S/o ^Sul<virdas, Caste Sahu, aggci aboyt 55 years, Agriculturist, R/o Village Pakurbhat, TahsilBalod, District Durg G.G. \^rsus 1. Gopi Rarn S/o Guharam, Cagte Sahu, aged abbut 27 years, 2. Guharam S/o Maniram, Caste Sahu, ^ed about 54 yeare, Gccupation Service (1-abour) Both are resident of viltege Heerapur, Tahsil Balod, District Durg C.G. {Civil revision under Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} NON-APPLICANTS/: (Defendants) Mr. RakeshPandey.counsetfortheapplicant. SinaleBench:Hon'bleMr.T.P.Sharma.J ORALORDER (29-9-2010) IA.No.2, application fbr takjng amended civil revisjon on fecord, is allowed. Amended civil revision be taken on record. 2. By this revision, the applicant has chaltenged legality & propriety (rf the judgment&decreedated 25-9-2008 pgssedbytheAddltionalDistnct Judge (F.T.C.), Balod, in Civil Appeal No.1 B/2007 reVersing the judgment & dsereedated 5-2-2002 passedbythe 2nd Givildudge©!aSs- II, Batod, in Civil Suit No.lB/2001, wherebyleamed Civil Judge Class-11 has decreed the suit for recovery of Rs;19,OQO/- against the non- applicants herein. By altowing appeal, learhedlower appellate Court has reversedlhejudgment&decreeofthetrialCourtandhasdismfeseclthe suit filed on behalfoftheplaintiff/applicant. ; 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment & decree and records ofboth theCourts below. -a» 4.3uit fbr recovery of Rs.19,000/- is based on tBree docun^its namely; ^'^-,-'.. •••'•:'.• •• '"'•••'•":-' ' ••• \ Ex.P-2, a receipt alleged to have be6ri executed by non-^lplicant No.'t Gopi Ram; Ex.P-6; one post card alleged to have been signed by both 1£> k ^:!'^sss A\ Soma the non-applicants; and Ex. P-10, the alleged reply submitted before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg. Both the parties have examined the witnesses. The non-applicants have also examined themsetves. Non-appticant No.1 Gopi Ram has denied signature over the three alleged documents. Non-applicant No.2 Guharam has denied signature over Ex.P-6. The appticant herein has not examined any witness in support of his claim to prove signature of the non-appiicants over Exs.P-2, P-6 & P-10, the crucial and substantial documents upon which the claim of the applicant herein is based. In absence of proof of genuineness of the aforesaid documents, liability could not be fastened upon the non-applicants herein. After considering the aforesaid documentary and orat evidence, learned lower appellate Court by allowing appeal has dismissed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.19,000/-. 5. On close scrutiny of evidence and the judgment & decree impugned, 1 do not find any illegality in the judgment & decree impugned requiring any interference in terms of exercising revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P, Sharma Judge s