: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.686 OF 2009 Raghunath Motiram Chaudhari .. Appellant V/s. Chandrakant Kisan Patil .. Respondent ..... Mr. Dushyant S. Pagare for the appellant None for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. The respondent filed suit in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan being Regular Special Civil Suit No.1603 of 1996. After giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan by judgment and decree dated 10 th October, 2008 decreed the suit partly and ordered that the appellant shall : 2 : pay the respondent a sum of Rs.2,52,500/- alongwith the interest. This decree is challenged in the first appeal. 2. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant. According to him, the appellant had placed on record sufficient evidence to show that monies were paid from time to time and as such evidence was given. This evidence has been considered by learned trial Judge and has observed that the defendant has not produced documentary evidence to show that the monies were paid from time to time. For giving explanation to this aspect of the matter, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that parties were related to each other in as much as the respondent is father-in-law of the appellant and therefore the appellant did not conduct himself in strict manner in as much as the appellant did not obtain receipts for the monies which were paid from time to time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned trial Judge and has negatived the contention of the appellant. 3. It is required to be noted that when monies are paid from time to time particularly when the amount is : 3 : in lakhs, there ought to be some document to show that monies were paid though relations between the parties were very close. It is also required to be noted that the appellant did not step into the witness box and job was left to the power of attorney who has given evidence. In my view, learned trial Judge has considered the matter in the proper perspective and has arrived at proper conclusion. 4. In my view, once it is accepted that the monies were not paid by the appellant from time to time in that case, the learned trial Judge has considered the matter in the proper perspective and that is how the decree is passed. 5. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, First Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. ORDER . First Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)