APPLICANT PLAINTIFP HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL KEVISION N0. 101/2010 Saadeep Dewaugan S/Q Kauhaiya Dewailgan Aged about 25 years, Profession Brick Contractor R/o Dewangau Para, Tehsil Kawardha Distt. Kalaudham (C.G.). VERSU8 RE8POHDBNT DEFENDANT Bhekhratu Gandharwa S/o Dulurani Gandharwa Aged about 50 Years, Profession Pisciculture, R/o Saraxtgpiu- Khurd, Tehsil Kawardha Distt. Kabitdham (C.G.). CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECnON 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shn Y.C. Sharma, Advocate with Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocate for the appUcaut/petitioner. Respondent not noticed. (M II il ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 10/11/8010( By ttus ciyU rcvision petitioner has chaUenged the legality and propriely of judginent and decree dated 16/8/2010 passed by Distorict Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) ia civil appeal No. Ol-B/2009 reversiug the judgment aad decree dated 23/12/2008 passed by Second CivU Judge Class-l, Kawardha in civU suit No. 09-B/2008 whereby Second Civil Judge Class-1, Kawardha has decreed fhe suit to the extent of Rs. 7457/-. As per pleadiugs of fhe petitioner, respondent who was working iu his bricks factory used to take loaa aad had taken loan of Rs. 14.502/- betweeu period 6/1/05 to 25/5/2006 from petitioner aad had put his signature ia the accouat book maintained by the petitioner. Som.e of the amount was adjusted by his labour work. ,.:'•'.*-°"'"' 'a» tj ^^ys^ g 1 WBS-'5S 1 viy ^ Rs. 7457/ - was reinam for payment but respondent has failed to pay fhe same then after serviag the notice suit for recoveiy of loaii was ffled. Same was coatested by respondent aud after providing aii opportunity of hearing to the parties learaed Secoad Civil Judge Class-1, Kawardha decreed the suit, which was chaUenged before the lowrer appeUate Court. By reversing judgment aad decree lower appeUate Court has dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate wifh Shri Vivek Rafhore, Advocate for the applicaut/petitioner are heard. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner veheuiently argued fhat Second Civil Judge Class-1, Kawardha has rightly decreed the suit on ffae basis of evideace adduced on behalf of ftie parties and after considering the Exs. P-4 & P-5 copy of accozmt book but without assigniag auy reason lower appeUaat Court bas reversed the judgment and decree and dismissed tiie claiiu of the pctitioner. Lower Appellate Court has failed to exercise thc jurisdiction vested on it. Judginent aad decree of both fhe Courts below and record of both the Courts below are perused. Lower AppeUate Court has substantiaUy reversed the judgment aud decree of trial Court and dismissed fhe suit on the groiind of variation in pleadiags, document and oral evidence. As per Para-2 of the plaint respondent has taken total loan of Rs, 14,502/- between the period 6/1/2005 to 25/5/2006 aad has put his s^nature but account book mamtamed by fhe petitioner Ex, P-4-C reveal that pots, sUver articles, cloths, cash aniount and other articles valued '•;>'. 3 Rs. 14134/- has been given to respondent by petitioner but same has not been pleaded by fhe petitioner iu his pleadings interalia as per pleadiags respondent has taken loau ia advaace fonn petitioner. Pleadings and Ex. P-4 documeut are contradictory to eaeh other. Respondent has not admitted fhe fact mentioned eifher in pleadmgs or ia docuiaent and has specificatly deiiied that plaiatifF has not provided aforesaid articks laentioned in Ex. P-4-C. Plamtiff/petitioner was under obUgatiou to prove his pleadiugs by adducing necessary evidence but evidence adduced on behalf of fhe petitioner aad pleadiags of fhe petitioner are self contradictoxy. In these circumstaaces aud speciaUy considering fhe evidence of respondent lower appeUate Court has reversed fhe Judgment aud decree of trial Court and has disuussed fhe suit. Lower appeUate Court has neither failed to exercise the jurisdictioa vested on it nor comnutted aay itlegalrty requiriag auy inference iu exercise of revisionaljurisdiction. Consequentiy, this civil revisiou is Uable to be disniissed and fe hereby disnussed. No order as to costs. T.P. Sharma ie ^K