Ir IN THE HIGH COCRT OF .TUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. / "T /2005 ^PLICANT: /Basant Saraf S/Q- Ashok Saraf Aged about 37 yeacs R/0- SadarRoad, Balodabazar Police Station- Balodabazar Distt- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS NON APPLICANT: ...^ ,v^ ...<,^ ..••".," .'^y. \./'\ y^ ..••• ^c^^ ^fc^y ,^'v/" & ..'•' :.-y< ^y .«< ^y.^'" ^y^ <?<61^-"' ^•' £ / Mohan Gupta S/0- Vishavanath Gupta Aged about 39 years R/0- Nehru Chowk, Balodabazar Tahsil - Balodabazar Distt- Balodabazar (C.G.) CIVIL EEVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 XI-HC-22 3^ -<<ww^, ^\W}<a, Rldlti^ ii*<Mish*irai ....€;^-..Llf.e^ an^T^T f?:ri°i?3n^r sbt<i*uRd 3<i^i gwiwnfia' <t.i*ir<riin^ ^i^rtTfffei<a <R|^|< ^si^ran^r 22/03/2005 Shri Y.C.Sharma, counsel fort Heard on admission. te applicant. The instant Civil Revision ha^ been preferred by the applicant as he is aggrieved by the impugned judgmen Firet Additional District Judge, Balod^ which the suit of the non-applicant hq appeal passed against the applicant| CPC no Second Appeal is maintai reoovery of money not exceeding F| preferred. Learned oounsel for the appl| impugnedjudgment and decree pas^ t and deoree dated 27/11/2004 passed by Bazar in Civil Appeal No. 1-B/2004 and by |s been deoreed. Since the valuation of the [is Rs. 24,000/- and as per Section 102 of lable when the subject matter relates to :s. 25,000/- henoe, the revision has been cant submits that from bare perusal of the ed by the first Appellate Court and bywhioh the findings of the trial Court has bee|i revereed and the suit has been decreed^ It is evident that while passing the de(;ree, material evidence available on reoord has been ignored and the oase has| also been ignored that in the document of Ex.P.1, the amount of Rs. 24,000/- h^s been subsequently inserted which makes the documents doubtful. He furflher submits that the grievance of the defendant/applicant has not been co^isidered by the firet Appellate Court and the suit has been decreed only on the t}asis of the statement of the plaintiffand his witnesses relating upon the documei|it of Ex.P.1. 1 have heard learned couns •I for the applicant on admission and 1 have gpne through the impugned judgm^nt and deoree passed by the fjrst Appellate Court and also through the judgmer am of the opinion that the suit has the basis of objective analysis an(j analyzing the findings of the trii tt and decree passed by the trial Couri: and 1 seen decreed by the first Appellate Court on the material available on record and after Court, there is no jllegality or material jj^ c XI-HC-22 ara' '<ii<iici<<, t9Tn'M'is, Rciiuy *ll*<Ml in*ii<»i i^l <^ash ....^.M^ sn^rw R-fi+an^r Sti>fi<ti?rf?(T 3TI^TgRITWn1?(T <Bi<ifa<fr-< ii*<MT^'tei^'<Ri+di< ^iSll^ITSn^T <- tfi: :on. irregularity present in the impugr|ed judgment ancf deoree whioh requires interference under revisional jurisdic| Aocordingly, the revision is| itself. liable to be djsmissed at the motion stage Inviewoftheabove, I.A. No. 354/2005 stands disposed Of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge