(U (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.1 Civil Revision No. -——1-<£2-—/06 APPLICANTS QEFENDANTS M^T ^^ " ....••••:^y ,^ RESPONDENTS P^AINTIFFS J< Banshidhar Kesari<S/o late ^ Devnarayari Keshari Aged- about 45yrs. Rajendra Prasad Keshari S/o . Biharilal Keshari Aged-about 48 years Both are the R/0 Ramanujganj, Thana 8& Tahsil- RamanujganjDistt.- Sarguja[C.G.]. VERSUS H J..- Subhash Paswan S/o Heeralal DEFENDANT ^ € ^' Paswan Aged-about 38yrs. Khedu @ Kanhaie S/o Heeratal Paswan Occupation- Service Kashi Prasad S/o Prabhudayal Aged-about 55 years, All are the R/o Ramnujganj Thana & Tahsil- Ramnujganj Distt.- Sarguja [C.G.] CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 READ WITH SEC.102 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 r ^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BJLASPUR CIVJL REVIStON N0.18 OF 2006 AP.BJCAMTS D'EFENDANTS MON-APPLICANTS PLASNTIFFS Banshidhar Kesari and another yersys Subhash Paswan anct others. REVJSION UNDERSeCTION 11S READWITH SgCTION 102 QF THE CODE OF C!ViL PROCEDURE.1908 fSinaie Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Arun Shukia, counsei for the applicant. None for non-applicante. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th day of January, 2010) The instant revlsjon js directed against the judgment and decree dated 09-12-2005 passed by First Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja Jn Civif Appeal No.21-A/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27-03-2002 passed by Civit Judge, Class-1, Ramanujganj inCivil Suit No.l-B/2000. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs f1)@d a suit for damages caused to them due to malicious prosecution filed by the applicante. Learned Trsal Court on a clpse scrutiny of evidence led, materia! placed and proved and submissions made allowed the suit and granted a decree of Rs.15,000/- against the appiicants. There against, the appeal preferred by the appjjcants was also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that ftie said judgment and decree has wrongly been passed by the Cjvii Judge, Ciass-1 and has wrongiy been affirmed by the appetlate Court jnasmuch as they have not dealt with the evidence adduced in the case in jts proper perspective. However, he failed to point out any jurisdjctional iilegaijty committed by both the Courts below in arriving at their finding concurrently. 4. it is trite law that whjle exercising the revjsjonal jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evjdence unless it can be shown Kvr that the judgment and decree Is patently ijlegal/findling Is pervei^e or is based on no evidence. 5. In view of the above, since the applicante could not point out any such illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding arrived at, by both the Courts below, in the considered opinlon of this Court, the revlsion being devoid of merite is liabie to be and is hereby dismjssed. No order asto coste. — Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge