.,^^-\:, ^ /" HIOH COURT OF CHHATriSaAIIH AT BIL^Wim 8BCOND APPBAL HO. 58 of 2007 APPBLLANT DBFBNDANT No. 1 RB8PONDEHT No. 1 DBPBWDAWT N0. 2 mi PLAINTIPy VBRSiyS 1. 2. Rameshwar Soni, son of Shid Lallsiraia Soni, aged about 50 Years, R/o Gudari Bazar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C,G<)> Radhesfayam Soixi^ soa of l^Uiiram Soisd aged about 45 years, R/o Gudad Bagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C,G.), Kedacaath Gupta, soa of MurUdhar Gupta, aged about 75 years, Occupatioii Radip shop/agdculture, R/o Ramanujga&j Road Nagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sai^uja (C.G.). SBCOND APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 100 OF CODB OF CIVIL PROCEDURB. (SB :Hontble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ravi Dafta, Advocate for fhe appeUaBt Respondents not noticed. ORAL- JODOBMBNT (PaBsedon 31/08/2010) 1. By ibss second appeal appeUaat has challei^ed fhe legalily aad propriety of judgment and decree dated 30/10/2006 passed by District Judge, Sai^uja (Ambikapur) in CivUAppcal No. 2B/2005 afiBnnmg the judgmcnt and decree dated 30/4/2005 paascd by Civil Judge Class-1, Ambikapur m cwU suit No. 4B/2002 wheareby bofh. the Courts below has decrced fhe suit for recoveiy of coasideration ofwheat suppfied to appeUant and respondeat No. l by respondeat N0. 2 to fhe tune of Rs. 32603.30/- along with 6% iaterest per aiuium., 2. SIui N.K. SShuMa, Sr. Advocate wiffa Shri Ravi Datta^ Advocate for the appeMaaat are heard, 'I %^^:y "<:"^w^' vgg: <>-) €>i- 3« Leamed counsel fbr the appc31aEit CTibmite fhat ^endgh pxieseiit secoHd appeal ^ substantfcd questioii of law would be where wheat J^- was supplied to prcsent appellaiit or prcsent appeltoat are liaNte 4e^ aoy payment to fhe respondent N0, 2, Prcseat a^ellaat aad respondent No, 1 brofhers have ffled jomt written statement ia which fhey have denied fhe aUegation made ia pteiiit by fhe respondent No, 2, They have adduced evideace conteadictoxy to fheir pleadmg aad on the basis of ocular aad documentaxy evideiice bofh fhje Courts below has decreed tlie suit ^gamst tfae appeKteait and respoiident No, 1. Considenng fhe xiature of defense Le, jdiat defense a&d contradictoiy evidence adduced on behatf of fhe rcspondent No, 1 and appeUaiit, I do not fiaid aay subataatial question of law for decision of fhis second appeal, Coxisequexitfy, this second appeal is Mable to be dismissed and is hereby dismtesed. 4, No oxder as to costs, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Jydge ^