1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.420/2005 Tejpal. vs. Manoharlal and others. Date : 29.10.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.S Saruparia, for the appellant. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2002. The first appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate court on 27.8.2004. Hence, this second appeal. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the document (Ex.1) is only an acknowledgement and not the original document creating cause of action for filing suit for recovery. In view of the above, the plaintiffs' 2 suit was not maintainable which is founded upon only Ex.1. It is also submitted that Ex.1 was not stamped properly. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments as well as document Ex.1. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of transaction of loan as the plaintiffs stated that the defendant/appellant used to take loans from the plaintiffs from time to time and on 30.3.1991, the defendant admitted the liability by writing in the book of the plaintiffs. Two courts below have considered the facts in detail and after going through the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. In view of the above, this second appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya