Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2009 Date of decision : April 20, 2010 Tara Chand ....Petitioner versus Laxmi Narain ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by plaintiff Tara Chand under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant Laxmi Narain for recovery of Rs 3650/- alleging that the defendant had taken plaintiff's agricultural land on contract for two years in the year 2000 and the electricity bill of the tubewell was to be paid by the defendant but the defendant failed to pay the electricity bill of Rs 2674/-. The plaintiff had to pay the said amount of the electricity bill. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed recovery of said amount from the defendant along with interest thereon. The defendant controverted plaintiff's allegations and pleaded that he had never taken plaintiff's land on contract. It was also alleged that Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2009 -2- the defendant has no concern with the electricity connection or payment of its bill. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 22.2.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs 2674/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree of the trial court till recovery. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging judgment and decree dated 22.7.2009 passed by the lower appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that original receipt of payment of electricity bill had been produced by the plaintiff in the trial court but inadvertently the trial court put the exhibit number on photostat copy of the receipt instead of making the exhibit number on the original receipt and therefore, the learned lower appellate court has erroneously allowed the appeal of the defendant on this ground. The contention cannot be accepted. The appeal has not been allowed on this solitary ground. On the other hand, it has been found by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff failed has to prove that the defendant had taken the plaintiff's land on contract. The plaintiff led only oral evidence in this regard. The said evidence stands rebutted by the defendant. Plaintiff's evidence has not been found to be sufficient to prove his case by the lower Civil Revision No. 6982 of 2009 -3- appellate court. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 20, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'