1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | CIVIL REVISION APPLN.NO. 80/2008 Shri D.J.Raut,Adv.for petitioner. Shri S.U.Choudhari,Adv.for respdt. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 18/11/2009. 1] This Civil Revision Application is filed by defendant against whom the trial Court has passed decree on 6/4/2002 for recovery of an amount of Rs.24800/- in R.C.S.No.20/02 filed by respondent-plaintiff. The controversy involved in the suit was whether the applicant-deft.has purchased the goods worth Rs. 20,000/- and was liable to pay the said amount to the respondent- plaintiff. 2] The trial Court has recorded a finding that Exh.37 is the acknowledgment, which is signed by 2 the applicant/deft. and it has been proved. Similarly, Exhs.21 to 31 are the sale receipts which are also proved. The appellate Court confirmed the said finding of fact against which the present Civil Revision Application is preferred. 3] The learned counsel Shri D.S.Raut appearing for the applicant has contended that the plaintiff has not produced any material on record to prove the transaction in question. In this respect, the finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the sale receipts Exhs. 21 and 31 are proved, is sufficient to dislodge this contention of the applicant. The second point raised by learned counsel, is regarding limitation and it is urged that the plaintiff should have produced the account books, to show that the suit was filed within limitation. However, this point is not raised in the Courts below. The contention itself indicates that it involves adjudication over the disputed question of facts. The same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time. The learned counsel has urged that Exhs.36 and 37 receipts have not been proved. Both the Courts below 3 have recorded findings of fact that receipts have been proved. There is no perversity in the said findings. 4] In the result, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/cra80-08