HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BliASPUR C.R.No.51of2007 Applicant : Jasveer Singh son of Ram Sjngh Punjabi, aged about 49 years, occupation, Moneylender and businessman, resident of Punjabipara, P.0. Bemitra, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus Non-apDlicant : Mantram Sahu son of Choturam Sahu, aged about 32 years, Carpenter, resident of Ganjpara, Ward No. 14, Tah. Bemitra, Distt. Durg (CG). Civil Revision under Section 1 15 of the Code of CMI Procedure (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.t Present : Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate forthe applteant. Shri SushobhJtSingh, Advocate for respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th day of March,2010) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard flnally. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg, in Civil Appeal No. 6-B/04, affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2004, passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-11, Bemetara, Distt. Durg, in Civil Suit No. 43-B/02, whereby and whereunder the applicant's suit has been dismissed, the instant revision has been preferred by the applicant. The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- based on two receipts Ex. P/1 & P/2. The non applicant, by filing written statement, denied the execution of Ex. P/2 for Rs. 12,000/-. However, execution of Ex. P/1 for Rs. 3000/-was admitted, but pleaded that he had already returned the said amount to the applicant, and prayed for dismissal of the suit with compensatory cost. The trial court, based on appreciation of evidence led in the case, dismissed the suit holding that a sum of Rs. 3000/- had already been returned back to the applicant by the non applicant, Ex. P/2 do not contain signature of the defendant, also imposed a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensatory cost upon the applicant. There-against, an appeal preferred by the applicant, was also dismissed afflrming the aforesaid findings. Hence this revision. Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the findings recorded by both the courts below are based on mis-appreciation of the evidence. The courts below have erred in disbelieving Ex. P/2 i.e. Receipt of Rs. 12,000/- by merely saying that signature on it are different. The court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the applicant for examination of handwriting expert. Once the execution of receipt of Rs. 3000/- (Ex. P/1) was admitted, heavy burden lies upon the applicant to prove its return, without such prove, the court below has erred in holding that Rs. 3000/- has been returned by the non applicant. She would further contend that both the courts below have traveled beyond their jurisdiction in awarding a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensatory cost against the applicant as there is no material available on the record for awarding such compensatory cost. 6. On the other hand, Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant would submit that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and the same are not open to challenge in the revision and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 7, I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of both the courts below. 8. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding that Ex. P/2 for receipt of Rs. 12,000/- do not contain signature of non applicant; the amount of Rs. 3000/- taken by non applicant vide Ex. P/1 has already been returned by him to the applicant/plaintiff. Thus, the findings are based on appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference ofthis court under its revisional jurisdiction. So far as, the point raised by the applicant that the court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the applicant for examination of handwriting expert with regard to Ex. P/2 i.e.receipt of Rs. 12.000/- is concerned, it was for the plaintiff/applicant to apply and examine the handwriting expert. The same has not been done, and therefore, contention put forth by the applicant is sans substance. 9. It is trite law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this court can onty interfere with the findings if the findings are based on ^ & Sahu no evidence or perverse. Nothing has been brought by the applicant to suggest that the orders passed by both the courts below are based on no evidence or finding is perverse. However, a sum of Rs. 10007- awarded by the court below as compensatory cost is certainly based on no evidence. 10. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the amount awarded as compensatory cost deserves to,be and is hereby set aside. 11. In view of foregoing, the revision is allowed in part. So far as direction regarding payment of Rs. 1000/-as compensatory cost to the applicant is concerned, the same is set aside. Other part of the order is upheld. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^^f