1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.368 of 2009 Shri Motilal Dhanraj Gugale .. Appellant versus Shri Ashok Badrinarayan Asawa .. Respondent ... Mr.A.P. Kulkarni for the appellant None for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :12th October 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed by the trial court but the decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court. The appellant is in appeal. 3. Mr.Kulkarni learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings by the two courts are not concurrent and hence, the appeal deserves to be admitted. I see no merit in this contention. The First Appellate Court is a final court on facts. It is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence. It has accordingly re-appreciated the evidence and has held that no money was payable by the respondent. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court is a possible finding of fact and no question of law, much 2 less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 4. Mr.Kulkarni then submitted that the finding recorded by the appellate court is perverse and therefore requires interference in Second Appeal. As stated earlier, in my view, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is a possible finding of fact. The appellant and respondent are both traders. The appellant sued the respondent for the recovery of price of the goods allegedly sold to the respondent. Respondent denied the transaction in toto. He denied having placed any order. He denied having received the goods. No written order for purchase of goods were produced. No receipt for delivery of the goods was also produced. On the basis of entry in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, the trial court decreed the suit. There was only one alleged transaction between the parties. This was not a suit on accounts. Therefore, the appellant was required to prove that transaction which the respondent had specifically denied. The appellate court after re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the transaction or delivery of goods was not proved. This is a possible finding of fact and I find no perversity in it. Appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)