1 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.223/2010. (Bodu Lal Agarwas Vs. Ashok Kumar) DATE OF ORDER : November 29, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS __________________________________________ Mr. Shambhoo Singh for the petitioner. Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar in Civil Appeal No.24/2010, whereby, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by defendant-petitioner and upheld the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kuchaman City in Civil Original Suit No.29/2008, by which, trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,075/- with interest at the rate of 9%. The petitioner-defendant is challenging the validity of both the judgments by way of filing this revision petition because as per Section 100, C.P.C. second appeal is not maintainable in case the decretal amount is less than ten thousand rupees. Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned trial Court as well as lower appellate Court 2 wrongly arrived at the finding that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.6,075/- along with 9% interest because as per Section 34 the transaction was to be proved by way of producing evidence of bills whereas the matter has been adjudicated by the Trial Court on the basis of certain other documents, therefore, the finding is totally contrary to basic principles of law. Having perused the impugned judgments I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, there is no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner because as many as five documents were exhibited to prove the case that three tins of ghee were take on credit and in support thereof plaintiff-respondent exhibited four documents including the notice sent to the defendant-petitioner by the plaintiff-respondent. In my opinion, learned trial Court has rightly considered and assessed documents balance-sheet, order-report and other documents and made adjudication which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, untenable in the eye of law. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding arrived at by both the Courts below. The finding arrived at by the Courts below is based on 3 sought appreciation of material on record. There is thus no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a. 4 In this second appeal, the appellants are challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006 passed by learned first appellate Court in Civil First Appeal (Decree) No.96/1993, whereby, learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1989 passed by Munsiff (City), Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.318/68 which is passed in civil suit for redemption of mortgage. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the trial Court after taking into consideration of evidence and pleadings dismissed the suit of plaintiff-respondents and gave finding that the plaintiffs have not proved issues No.1, 8A, 8B and 8C. Against said judgment passed by the trial Court, appeal was preferred and, in the first appeal, the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit against the defendant-appellants while reversing the findings upon issues No.1, 8B and 8C. As per learned counsel for the appellants, the finding of learned appellate Court is totally perverse and contrary to pleadings of the case because the plaintiffs did not prove the mortgage-deed in accordance with Section 69 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence 5 Act. Further, it is submitted that some defendants were impleaded as party subsequently during the pendency of the suit and, till their impleadment, limitation of suit in respect of such defendants had expired, therefore, learned first appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect of the matter which is not considered by the first appellate Court in proper manner. As per learned counsel for the appellants, the finding of the first appellate Court with regard to issue No.8A, 8B and 8C are not based upon proper application of law, therefore, in this case following questions of law emerge for consideration : “........................................................”