IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 490 of 2009. Decided on: 1.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri Rajesh Kumar … Appellant. Versus Shri Karam Chand. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against settled position of law? 2. Heard. Admittedly, the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed for recovery of Rs. 15,000/-. The suit was decreed. First appeal has been dismissed. It is how the appellant/defendant is before this Court by way of present regular second appeal. 3. At the very outset, an objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the specific provision of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inasmuch as that the second 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 appeal is not maintainable where the suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has fairly conceded at the bar that he has no escape route and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground at this very stage. 4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 1, 2010. (cr)