r-A /^ ^' ?" ^ :fti ,-A^' ^^- / IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATUSGARH AT BILASPUR aVIL REVISION No. ^/ / r, .J2QO&-—.J. APPLICANT ^ ^/Bhururam S/o Jaitram aged about Defendant ^^.^"W^ 48 years, R/o Village Revadeeh, w" .•••?""",-^T^--'" post Revadeeh, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ,. Gorelal, S/o Faguram Savarkar, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Chikhli Ward No. 3, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) N01M APPLICANT Plaintiff CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE -HC-78 ywq "yi«lrt«,y-rfl'H^ld, Rril<iy'< *11*1«1®'i7?>a>^. N!^. 1^)fo 3II^?T iRcp ('j'rfgcR?) W^20 sn^Tw^qre asir8ii^?rd>*ii* 1 8^I8R?lft(T3II^?T S.B. Hon'bte Shri Justice N.K. W-Q2-2MQ .Shri Anup Majumdar, Heard on admission. The instant revision i? dirs decree dated 31-07-2009 pass< Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil app| judgment and decree dated 29-( Judge, Ciass-!!, Rajnandgaon in Facts briefly stated are as The plaintlff institute^ applicant/defendant for recove^ promissory note. The applican| said suit that he has taken loanl Rs.20,000/- and that too has bee\ was a!so taken that he has signe<| The learned Trial Couft evidence, recorded a finding Rs.20,000/- and executed a and decreed the suit. The said) appellate Court. coun^el for ths appiicant. having perused the judgment a belov/, i do not find any illegality error committed bv the Courts It is trite law that v/1 junsdiction, this Court cann&t re^ <ni<<fCT<S1l *lll»V^"l^'^l•iful^l^ ^3ri^i3ii$?r jcted against ths judgment and ^d by First Additional District ^al No.4-B/2008 confirming the P3-2008 passed by Third Civil tjvil Suit No. 40-B/2006. linder: suit against the |y of Rs.20,000/- based on Mefendant took a plea in the of Rs.5,000/- only and not of fi repaid by him. A further plea on a blank promissory note. based on appreciation of the defendant took a loan of |iissory note jn plalntiffs favour ing was confirmed by the >unse! for/ the applicant and hd decree of both the Courts irregularitv leadina to manifest below. aile exereising the revisional appreciate the evidence uniess I'.K^R? '-l,. «(»'us"^''%*.> L- SHC-78 *11*lril ^IT^ viwr^wM<i, t»-al<«<i<B,Roll'My ,_. (L- ^. ^o- 0^1 ^o/6 •'• W^20^ 311^91 iRtp (l^cjf^cl^) 3I1^?T®TR'li* craT3II^Tri»*fi<b Kw !t is trite iaw that wt jurisdiction. this Court cannot it can be shown that the judi illegaSi'finding is perverse or is bai tile exercising the revisionai re-^ppreciate the evidence uniess timent and decree is patentiy a^ed on no evidence. !n view of the above, sii out any such iliegality or perv^ arrived at, by both the Courts be!| this Court, the rsvision being de\| is hereby dismissed. No order a^ cpi«[oiqli*iiinV*Ffe>^l 'jRl't^l'l ?idiRl«<3ii^?r n^e the appli'cant couid not point ^rsity in the concurrent finding l|ow, in the considered opinlon of toid of merifs is liable to be and }tocosts. --—:— Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Jydge >f"-*^R-f>-