PAGE NO“.. . .”... IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CRHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR @‘T‘E $ngle 3mm (BK mg“ 26W 5.3.(cIW L.) E.S.N. Kunjoo S/a shri E.N.S. Pillayee; aged 52 years; cast Nair chhatri (Ep- Branch - Manager s. B.I. Keshkaal); & \ APP ELLANTS , DEFENDANTS 1) ant. Indra Kunjao W/c shri E. S.N. Kunjoo; (Teacher); aged 52 years; Caste chhatri (Khosla) Both R/o Mahurband (Near Collector's Bunglow) Kan-ker Distt. Ranker c;G. k VERSUS RESPONDwfE Kishor Galchha s/o sumer; age PLAINTIFF v 23 years; caste Marwadi; 6/ Business- Golchha Kasht & Furn1ture Industries; Bakhru~ Para Narayanpur Distt. Easter (C. G.) z. l w ’ QvWGEE’GF—GI-V'EL PROCEDURE ULg. 1U; (5/: TH€C¢D€OF (P C -‘ Mvfs’fw g CCHdC a5/;/€ f5, (;D$y€¢yfc/ mpgAL VELUap AND STAMP OF Rs, avg—m ‘73” PW“ cwyvA ova/W AFFIXED As ?ER TRIAL COURT; ALTHOUGH C/Q/{ztej (2/74v/K //_2.04{ IMPRO?ERLY STAMPED WITH RS. 2780-00 IN FIRST APP EA L . Being aggrieved by Judgment delivered & decree 091 drawn on 11.v1"1.26’a3\in c.A.No.19¢§/2ooa, ANNEXURE-A/1 e ‘ANNEXURE A/z. respectively party being 3.5.N. Kunjoo a another vs. Kishor Golchha; passed by Shri A.K. Bek : the learned seé’bnd Additional District Judge Bastar, Jagdalpur C.G.; congirming the judgement & Decree with same Modifica- tion in C. 5.9m. 1B/2001 dated 30.4. 2003 party being Kis’nor ..2.. .@ WWW QR Nb My /OV Vxm ‘aa zoo mm (Wu) WWW WWW preferred in which finding recorded by consideration the made by the appli< along with interest . Shri Sanjeev Sahi would submit that the judgment and decree dated 1 1- the 11nd Additional District Judge, vision has been preferred. are as under:- e W'W§wm %aim&né¥l SB. HON. SHRI JUSTI E N.K. AGARWAL 1 1-3-2010 Shri Sanjeev Sahu, Adv. for the applicant. Heard on admissiox . . Feeling aggrieved b 1 1-2003 passed b Bastar the instant 2. Brieffacts of the 3. The non-applicant plajmjji‘ instituted a suit for recovely against the applic t. The trial Court in Civil Suit no. 1B/2001 vide its j dguent and decree dated 30—4-2003 t the applicant for payment of Rs. interest at the rate of 12% per . There—against the iirst appeal was First AppellaterCourt afirmed the the Court below but after taking into balance amount and the payment ‘ant, passed a decree of Rs. 12,768/— at the rate of 6% per annum. 1, learned counsel for the applicant learned both the Courts below have mmm 311w ' s e c g‘wc M5763 \QN Wm W 200 mm (Wu) 1 ; m mW mm am m WW?W fséf ml? i 3211 3m!m a? aim m erred in recording the finding that the applicant is liable for payment of aforesaid amount. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and having perused the judgnent and decree impugned, I do not and any. substance in the revision. Both the Courts below have on a eciation of evidence held that the applicants have to pay decretal amount which is based on appreciation of vidence. 6. It i‘s trite law t in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, this C urt can reverse the finding only on the ground that th finding recorded by both the Courts below are pervers or based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the ap licants failed to point out any such perversity or that nndings are based on no evidence. 7. In view of the abo e, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned rt below has not committed any jurisdictional illeg ‘ty/material irregularity in passing the impugned ju nt. 8. The revision being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dism ssed. p r a e u d e