i®.-. -_B . «i:% — —.— ssnSn'WgsRn ^";i ^•6vff Ssf' •;;-?.^.«•'-'* IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ CFVIL REVISION N0. >iWiC, OF ^S^^" APPLICANT DEFENDANT .fi' jBalaram Joshi, S/0 late Ramchand Joshi, agedabout72 years, Occupatioii- Unemployee, R/0 •2^^.fy\ GanJPara ward No. 34, near Mohan Bal Mandir, ^ J^:>:n Durg, Tahsil & District- Durg, (C.G.) ^•^ ~ • ^ ^ ""..^'}'^ VERSUS RESPONDENT X^AINTIFF §aligramJoshi, S/0 late Ramchand Joshi, aged about years, Occupation- Businessman, R/0 Apapura, Ward No. 26, Durg, Tahsil & District- Durg, (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDERSECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT Defendant Civil RevisionNo. 86 of2010 Balram Joshi Versus RESPONDENT : Saligram Joshi Plaintiff CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE_QFCIYILPRQCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble Mr.N.K. Asarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the applicant, None for the respondent though served. ORALORDER CPassed on 11.01.2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. The applicant/defendant aad respondent/plaintiff are real brothers. The respondenl/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,950/- against the applicant/defendant on the ground that defendant was collecting rent irom the tenant as his agent but he did not pay the same to the plaintiff. 3. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held the defendant was collecting rent from the tenant as an agent of plaintiff but the same was not paid tp the plaintiff, and decreed the suit. The first appeal preferred there- against was also dismissed affinning the above findings. 4. Shri Banjare, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant/defendant has faUed to point out any jurisdictional illegality in the orders passed by the trial court as well as'the judgment and decree passed (^ by the first appellate court. Admittedly, the rent was not paid to the plaintiffby the defendant, The defendant's case was that he himself was the owner of the house, entitled for the rent. The above plea was rejected by both the courts below on appreciation of evidence led in the case. There is no material in the record suggesting any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. 5. Therefore, the revision being devoid ofsubstance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge ^•"s^'s ssS^ iS