INTHE HIGHCOURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) C. R.No. l(^ /2003 C1YILREYI8IONU/S.11SOFC.P.C. r"' APPLICANT/ 'PLAINTIFF B.K. Mahobia, aged about 49 years Advocate, R/o. Puiem Basti Raipur (C.G.) VE^US -\ ^ x' NPN-APFL3CANTS DEFENDANTS .>- ^€,L ..^^S^^tA...-^ ^^^- Vijay KimmTAg^siiiotii, aged47 ^ors S/o. RameshwarPrasad, R/o. VijayMedical ^ore, "KesNaal" Distt. Bastar (C.G.) R^vishankar Shukla, aged 57 years OccupationGoviemmeiri; Service R/o. Bhavan.No. 36 Uim Kutir, Jalbiliar Colony Raipur Tah. <& Distt. Raipur (C.G.) AGAINST TH^ JUDGEMENT AND DECREE f9.10.2002 R4SSED BY^IT^iDDITIONAL D3STRICT JUDGE RAIPUJR IN CIVIL APPEAL N0.5-B/2002 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DISIVHSSING THE OTHER CLAIM /^ ";- ^ ^. %^ ^ Xl-HC—78 ^tW^I 9)W^ ~3~^r T^i<li}<n^, ^fljFr^/f^TRTy ...c.l...M^~ •^200 ^^ Tr^R' (^qi^<^T) 3Tr^T'^?f^N> 7T^^T!^T^RN? i'^iW^t^^t^ S.B^iion'ble Shrl Jvstice N.K. B^J », Shri SK Beriwaj with Shri appiicant. S'nri Manoj Mishra, Advocat^ With the consent ofthe parti^ The instant revlsion is direi decreedated 19.10.2002, passed Raipur, in civil appeal No. 5-B/02J judgment and decree dated 1 0.04.^ civii suit No. 59-B/96 has been aff dismissed. The brief facts of the case instituted a civii suit for recovery which according to the appiicant Rs to the defendant, Rs. 13,500/- was towards and Rs. 1 7587- was notice charges. ^l^id^l^ 1RW^!f ^* t^^ Tfa^K ^atRw ^n^r iatan Pusty, Advocates for the for the respondent No. 1. 's, the matter is heard finaily. ;ted against t'ne judgment and »y!!lrd Additiona! District Judge, whereby and whereunder the 'OOO, passed by the triai court In rmed and the appeai has been |are that, the plaintiff/appeilant |f amount of Rs. 20758/- out of |. 5000/- vvas !oan amount given jthe amount which was baiance 1/vards interest and Rs. 500/- for The tria! court, on close scrL|tiny of the evidence ied by the Iparties, the materiai availabie on t|ie record, and submissions of jthe partiss, the decree for IRs. 5000/- alongwith interest @ :^ aaa y" \ \ ^SSs^ | XI-HC—78 ^-^ ^TRT^R, ^Tll^<lj<$, t®?^Tray ^rwrr^hNj^ •"^200 3^?T Tr^F (1(^f3^f) ^I^T^T^t^ T^ TT^I 3^7^T ^FTHW Sahu ^RHWRfi^^^ 10 percent per annum, and part ofthe amount ciaimed. The first appeilate court aff| by the trial court. i have gone carefully throug perused the record and the eviden< T'ne flndings regarding pialntiff/applicant is entitied for th{ finding of fact. Both the courts b| finding based on evidence adduc^d record by the parties. The said therefore, the revision does not inv iaw nor any manifest jurisdictiona! for the interference of thls coi jurisdiction against the appellate d^ The revision is llable to be a order asto costs. ^r^fef^r wR^f ^ fe^t '(f^R?R ^3ffOT3??^r lismissed the suit for remaining 'med the judgrnent and decree the materiai piaced on record, e ied by the parties. as to whether or not the ^ sum daimed is essentiaiiy a felow have recorded concurrent ;^d and the materiai placed on findings are not perverse, and /^lve any substantiai questlon of ierror is committed so asto cail jrt while exercislng revisionai ^ree passed in flrst appeal. d is accordingjy_dismlssed. No Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge J-.