HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BHASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 178 OF 2004 APPLICANT APPBUANT PLAENTIFF RESPONDBNTS RESPONDBNT^ DEFBNDANTS 3. i!181i*» Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Govind Agrawal, Physician (M.B.B.S.), Resident of Gundayee, Tah. Chhtiikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CQ) Verays Moolchand, age 53 years, son of Shri C.M. Agrawal, Physician, R/o. Gandayee, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon (CG) Chhote Lal Sharma, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Bhawni Prasad Sharma, Hotel business, as well as contractor, R/o Oandayee, Tah. Ghhiiikhadan (CO) Nfeez Mohammad, aged about 41 years, son of SIui Dhelu Mohmd. Musalman, Grain Merchant and famier, resident of village Sii^angarh, Sub Tahsil Sahaspnr Lohara, Distt. Kawardha (CO) ^ ^ SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Aganval, J. PRESBNT:- Shri R.N. Jha, Adv. for the applicant. Shri Dashrath Prajapati, Adv. for respondents ORDER (29-3-2010) Per N.K. Aiarwal. J 1. The instant revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Khairagarh in CivU Appeal No. l-B/2003 dated 28-8-2004 coiifirming the judgment and decree dated 25-2-2003 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Khairagarh in CivU Suit No. 28-B/99 whereby and whereunder leamed trial Court has dismissed fhe suit preferred ty the applicant/plaintifif. 2. Brief facts offhe case are as undcr:- 3. According to the plaintifiyapplicant, in order to harm his repufation, falsc complaint has been filed by fhe non- applicants and pursuant thereto, the applicant was falsely implicated and Executing Magistrate, caihuikhadan has filed Isttgasa under Sectdfans 107 and 116(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. , Leamed trial Coiirt an a close scrutiny of the evidexice led, material placed and submisslons made held fhat the ii.fci ..;"•&),. •i.BB>y ^y SSs i*ai ...^ S5SK plaintiff has feiiled to prove Che fact that the comidaint made by the respondents was false and disaiissed the suit. The appeal preferred there-^ainst was also dismissed by fhe hnpugied Judgment and decree affiu-ming fhe finding of (he trial Court. 5. Sbri Jha, leamed counsel for fhe applicant woiild submit that since the appUcant was falsely impBcated, fherefore, leamed bofh fhe Qiurts below have eired in dismissing fais suit 6. Per contra, Shri Dashrath Prajapati, learaed counsel for the respondents would subuiit that it has been proved as a fact that fhe complaint lodged by respondent No. 1 was not false and only thereaiter fhe siiit has been dismlssed and (he appeHate Court has aEBrmed fhe aforesaid finding which is not open for chaUenge uider (he revisional jurisdictional offhis Court. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Leamed Gourts below have recorded a findu^ fhat the complaint filed by the respondent was notfalse. Shd Jha failed to point out any perversity or illegdily in the aforesaid findmg. 9. It is trite law that under revisioiial jurisdfetian, fhis Court should not interfere in the fmding of fact unless the same is perverse, fflegal or based on no evldence. Since the flndii^; of fact in tiiie instant case cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or based on no evidence, therefore, I do not find any substance tn fhe revision. 10. The revision being without substanoe, deserves to be and is herety dlsmissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 9>