C.R. No. 4028 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4028 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.7.2009 Harjit Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Sher Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. Nos. 16743 -CII of 2009 This is an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007, passed by the learned trial Court. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, the filing of certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007, passed by the learned trial Court is ordered to be dispensed with. C.M. No. 16744-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 27 days in filing the revision. No limitation is prescribed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the application being totally misconceived, is C.R. No. 4028 of 2009 2 ordered to be dismissed. C.M. No. 16745-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 114 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, the delay of 114 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C. R. No. 4028 of 2009 & C.M. No. 16746-CII of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / petitioner was ordered to be dismissed, and the counter claim filed by the respondent / defendant was decreed. The plaintiff brought a suit on the pleading that on account of his standing as surety, the plaintiff / petitioner made a payment of Rs. 8200/- (Rupees eight thousand and two hundred only ) to the shopkeeper for purchase of refrigerator by the defendant, and the plaintiff /petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount. In defence, the defendant / respondent took a plea that in fact a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only ) was payable by the plaintiff / petitioner and after adjusting the amount of Rs. 8200/- (Rupees eight thousand and two hundred only ) he was entitled to Rs. 6800/-(Rupees six thousand and eight hundred only ). The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence accepted the version given by the respondent / defendant and decreed the suit. However, the suit was wrongly decreed for Rs. 8200/-(Rupees eight C.R. No. 4028 of 2009 3 thousand and two hundred only ). The mistake committed by the learned trial Court stands corrected by the learned lower appellate Court. The decretal amount stands reduced to Rs. 6800/- (Rupees six thousand and eight hundred only). Interest @ 6% per annum was granted on the decretal amount. The regular second appeal is specifically barred under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as the amount is less than Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only ). The petitioner, therefore, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment and decree. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the learned Courts below have wrongly decreed the counter claim, even though there was no evidence, whatsoever, in support of the payment of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only ), as claimed, by the defendant / respondent. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case stood accepted in the written statement, whereas the defendant had failed to prove the stand taken in the counter claim. The suit of the plaintiff / petitioner was, therefore, liable to be decreed and the counter claim dismissed. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court in exercise of revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, or in regular second C.R. No. 4028 of 2009 4 appeal cannot appreciate the evidence to come to different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned Courts below. On appreciation of evidence it has been held, that the defendant / respondent, was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6800/- (Rupees six thousand and eight hundred only ) after adjusting the amount claimed by the plaintiff / petitioner. No fault can be found with the concurrent finding of fact. Dismissed. 22.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE