Civil Revision No. 4135 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4135 of 2009 Date of decision : October 07, 2010 Gharsi Ram ....Petitioner versus Parmanand ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vipin Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. SK Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Gharsi Ram who was successful in the trial court but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent-plaintiff Parmanand filed suit against the petitioner alleging that after settling accounts on 1.2.1999, an amount of ` 15,500/- remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff for which writing was thumb marked by the defendant. The defendant agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.25% per month. However, the defendant failed to pay any amount thereafter in spite of demands including written notice. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed ` 15,500/- as principal amount and ` Civil Revision No. 4135 of 2009 -2- 6500/- as interest for pre-suit period i.e. total amount of ` 22,000/-. Defendant after referring to some earlier transactions admitted that amount of ` 15,500/- remained due from him to the plaintiff as on 1.2.1999. The defendant, however, pleaded that in the year 1999, he had taken one and half acres land for cultivation from one Leela Ram and had grown vegetables therein and the said crop of vegetables was sold to the plaintiff who told that the loan of ` 15,500/- stood cleared and nothing remained due from the defendant. However, when defendant received notice from the plaintiff in December, 2001, the defendant learnt that the plaintiff had cheated him. Defendant convened a Panchayat wherein plaintiff admitted having sold vegetables of one and half acres land and the plaintiff agreed that he would receive balance amount from the defendant after deducting the price of the vegetables. However, the plaintiff did not accept the decision of the Panchayat. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh vide judgment and decree dated 4.4.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2008 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed for recovery of ` 22,000/- with pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as second appeal is not maintainable in view of section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit amount being less than ` 25,000/-. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Civil Revision No. 4135 of 2009 -3- case file. As noticed hereinbefore, the defendant in his written statement admitted that sum of ` 15,500/- remained due from him to the plaintiff as on 1.2.1999. The defendant, however, pleaded that he had repaid the said amount to the plaintiff by sale of crop of vegetables. The onus to prove the same was, therefore, heavy on the defendant. However, the defendant- petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the said onus. Defendant's witnesses have stated about convening of Panchayat in the matter wherein it was decided that the plaintiff would deduct the amount of vegetables sold but the plaintiff did not accept the decision. However, except the defendant, there is practically no other witness to prove that vegetables of defendant had been sold by or to the plaintiff. It has also not come in evidence as to how much amount towards price of vegetables was to be adjusted by the plaintiff out of the amount due from the defendant. Thus, the defendant's version in this behalf is completely untenable. In addition to the aforesaid when there was written document regarding the due amount from the defendant, it does not sound probable that the defendant repaid the said amount by sale of vegetables without any writing. Defendant's version is inherently improbable and unreliable. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent- plaintiff admitted that he had received ` 5,000/- from the defendant on 15.5.1996 but the plaintiff has not produced writing regarding said repayment. The contention is misconceived and irrelevant. Writing regarding payment of ` 5,000/- made by defendant to plaintiff on 15.5.1996 has no relevance to the suit because admittedly long after said repayment of Civil Revision No. 4135 of 2009 -4- ` 5,000/- accounts were settled between the parties on 1.2.1999 and sum of ` 15,500/- was admittedly found due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Consequently, payment of ` 5,000/- on 15.5.1996 became irrelevant. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner also contended that the defendant-petitioner is illiterate. However, illiteracy is not panacea for all the ills nor it is an excuse to claim adjudication of an issue in favour of the party pleading illiteracy. Moreover, illiteracy of the petitioner has no relevance because admittedly amount of ` 15,500/- remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff on 1.2.1999. The defendant has miserably failed to prove repayment thereof. Learned lower appellate court is final court of fact. Finding of fact recorded by lower appellate court is substantiated by the evidence on record and is based on proper appreciation of evidence supported by cogent reasons. Even in second appeal finding of fact of the lower appellate court is not open to challenge except on substantial question of law. In the revisional jurisdiction, scope for interference is limited as compared to scope in second appeal. The impugned judgment of the lower appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 07, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'