HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (D Civil Revision No. 114 of 2005 Applicant/ . Meghuram S/o Jagmohan Lodhi Aged Defendant about 5,0 years, Village Kanpa Para Khapri Tehsil Saja, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus Respondent! Virendra Kumar Singhaniya aged about Plaintiff 4O years, S/o Shri Malu Ram Singhaniya, R/o Tatyapara, Raipur (CG). - Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (Sinqle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) ' , Present : ShriYC Sharma,Advocate for applicant. Shri Mano] Paranjpe, Advocate for respondent. ORDER (Passed on 7‘“ day of April, 2010) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the‘ judgment and decree dated 13.07.2005? passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No. 38/2004, the instant revision has been preferred. The brief facts of the case as under : According to the plaintiff, a loan of Rs. 14,000/- has been taken by the defendant and as the same has not been repaid, the suit for recovery of Rs. 18,01 7/- alongwith interest was filed. in its written statement, the applicant/defendant took a specific plea that he has not taken any loan from the plaintiff. The receipt is forged and fabricated. lt is also alleged that plaintiff is a moneylender. 5. The trial c‘ourt, on appreciate of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held plaintiff is not a moneylender; had advanced ioan of Rs. 14,0001- to the \ \ defendant, decreed the suit. 6. The applicant preferred First Appeat against the said judgment and decree. The first appellate court affirmed the above findings. However, the first appellate court upon holding receipt executed by the applicant does not contain any condition with regard to payment of interest, disallowed the interest and modified the judgment and decree. Hence this revision. 7. Shri YC Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the‘trial court as well as the first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective; as per evidence of plaintiff as well as Ajam Khan (AW/2), it can be safely inferred that the plaintiff is a moneylender and thus, both the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction should not inter into appreciation/re—appreciation of the evidence. The findings recorded by both the courts below are not open for inter inference. He would further contend that unless the order is patently illegal or without jurisdiction or the findings recorded are perverse, this court should not interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by both the courts below in exercise of its t revisional jurisdiction. 9. l have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of both the courts below. /\ x \ \ ‘ \ V So far as, question whether or not plaintiff is moneylender, the defendant has not adduced'any evidence in this regard. The findings are essentially findings of fact and the court should not interfere with the findings unless findings are based on no evidence or perverse. 11. The Supreme Court in case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and Another v. Ajit' Prasad Tarway, Manager (purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad‘ has observed in Para 5 as under : “5. ln our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the orde that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. lt is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the'Civil Procedure Code: see the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (1966) 1 SCR 102=(AIR 1966 SC 153) ‘ and VD.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. New T. Delhi v. Sarup Singh (1970) 2 SCR 368=(AIR 1971 SC 2324). “ 12. ln View of above, since no jurisdictional illegality has been pointed out by the applicant, in the considered opinion of this court, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl— N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu‘. 1AIR 1973 sc76 /