IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. Z3/2008 ^^.s^'^,A> -M^ -^\ --.^•( ^ ^..o-^"" ,.^.-' ^fl^- Petitioner :: Sujan Singh S/o. late Bhagat Singh, Plaintiff ____, _i___.^ c.^ ____„_ ^__-.^_^-. years, Occupation Business, R/o. Koshtapara, Raigarh, <3<£>^^J.^^ Tahsil and District Kaigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Neera Devi, Widow of Arvind Kumar, aged about 36 years, Occupation Service, Behind SECL Office, Kelovihar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Respondent Defendant ^" CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISaARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 23 OF 2008 APPMCANT Sujaii Singh Versi&s RSSPOHDENT Smt. Neera Devi SI3??GLE BBNCH:- Hon. Shi-i ^T.K. Agarwal, J PRBSENT :- Shri Mohd. Asif, Advc»ate,for applicant. ORAL ORDBR (27-1-2010) 1, Heard on adiiiission. 2. This revision arises agamst the judgiiient aad decree dated 27- 12-2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh ia Civil Appeal No. 2-B/2007 whercby aad whereiinder, fhe appeal preferred by the appUcaiit herein is dismissed afiElrming flie judgment and decree dated 22-2-2007 passed by Secoiid CivU Judge Class 1, Raigarh ia Civil Suit No. 15-B/2006. 3. Facts ofthe case, m brief, are that the appMcant filed a suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The said suit was disniissed by leanied tdal Court by recordio.g a fiiiding that there is interpolatiou ia flie receipt dated 9-5-2002 011 tlie strengfh ofwhich the suit has been filed ao.d actual date was 19-5-2002 and not 9-5-2002 aiid also same is not proved. The Appellate Court also affirmed the said findmg. 4. Shri Mohd. Asif, leanied counsel for the appycant could not point out aiiy jurisdictional illegality m fhe order passed by both the Coiu-ls below, It is tdte law tliat Coiirt m exercise of revisional jurisdictioii can onty iaterfere in fhe judgnient aiid decree passed by tiie Courts below tf tfae judgmeiit is pateutly Illegal, passed ignoriag niaterial evidence or is based OB no evidence. It is also not ia dispute fhat in exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction tliis Court will not re-appreciate tlie evidence adduced by fhe parties. Such position is not here. 5, In view of above, the revision beiiig devoid of substaiice^ is liable to the aiid is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge