FA/992/1977 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 992 of 1977 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= DESAI TALJA KALYAN - Appellant(s) Versus BHAGWATLAL MAGANLAL PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : None for Appellant(s) : None for Petitioner No(s).: for Appellant(s) : 1, MR VC DESAI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4th January, 1973, passed in Civil Suit No. 50 of 1973, by the learned City Civil Court, whereby the learned trial Judge had directed the appellant-original FA/992/1977 2/3 JUDGMENT defendant to pay the respondent-original plaintiff no. 1 a sum of Rs.7,730/-. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. Respondent no. 1-original plaintiff no. 1 is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act and is engaged in lending money under the Money Lender's License. It is the case of the respondent-original plaintiff that on 4th January, 1970 an amount of Rs.5325/- was lent to the appellant-original defendant against a promissory note executed. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant-original defendant did not return the said amount. The respondent therefore preferred a Suit being Civil Suit No. 50 of 1973 before the learned City Civil Court, for recovery of the said amount along with interest. 2.1. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-original plaintiff and directed the appellant-original defendants to pay a sum of Rs.7,730/- to the respondent-original plaintiff no. 1. FA/992/1977 3/3 JUDGMENT 2.2. Against the said order of the learned trial Judge, the appellant-original defendant has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3.0. When the matter is called on for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant is not present. Having perused the evidence on record, it is clear that the money is lent against the promissory note and real lender is respondent no.1-original plaintiff no. 1, who has brought the suit within the period of limitation. Respondent no. 2-original plaintiff no. 2 is the nominal payee in whose name the promissory note stands and it was just a proper party to the suit. 4.0. In view of the above, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/