0102sa491.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR S.A.NO.491 of 2010. Udhav s/o Marotrao Teje ..vs.. Babarao s/o Laxman Naxane ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.K.S.Narwade Adv. for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Chopde, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 1st February, 2011. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 5th of July, 2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2006 by which, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 25th of January, 2005 came to be set aside. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.35000/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had approached him for a hand loan of Rs.35000/- to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter. The said transaction took place on 3rd of April, 2002 when the said amount was advanced to the defendant. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to pay the hand loan within one year. However, when the plaintiff asked the defendant to repay the said hand loan, the same was refused by the defendant, upon which the plaintiff had issued the notice and thereafter filed the suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.35000/-. The 0102sa491.10.odt 2 Trial Court decreed the said suit only on the basis that the testimony of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged as he was not cross-examined by the defendant. The Trial Court merely on the basis that the pass-book of the plaintiff shows a withdrawal of Rs.61000/- on the date when the transaction took place, held that the plaintiff had proved that he has, in fact, paid an amount of Rs.35000/- to the defendant. Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court dated 25th of January, 2005, the defendant filed an appeal being Reg.Civil Appeal No.13 of 2006. The first Appellate Court, on a reappreciation of the evidence and considering the fact that the plaintiff was the father in-law of the daughter of the defendant and on the said basis observing that it was highly improbable that the father of the bride would take a loan from the father of the bride-groom, as also in view of the fact that the Trial Court had erred in relying solely upon the evidence of the plaintiff without there being any other corroborative evidence, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court. In my view, considering the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate court which findings have been recorded on a reappreciation of the evidence on record, the Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for adjudication by this court. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute