<D IN THE HiGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BiLASPUR CHHATTiSGARM ^ CIVIL N0. ^ APPLICANT DEFENDANTNOJ yRam Awatar, S/c'. Bhukhan Singh, Caste - Kurmi, Aged about 37 years, Occupation - Kashtkari, R/o- Village Kewanchhi, P-0- Jha'i, Tahsil - Bemetara, Distt. - Durg (CG) NGN-APPLiCANTS ./' VERSUS 1K> Dhaniram S/o. Jivrakhan Singh Kurmi, ^" Aged about 36 years, Occupation Kashtkari, R/o. Village Bahera, Post Karesara, Tahsu - Bemetara, Dtstrict - Durg (CG) [Platnt-iff] 2J^ Khediya Bai VVd/o. Jivrakhan Kurmi, Aged about 68 years, Kashtkar, R/o. Village Bahera, Post - Karesara, Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Durg (CG) ^3] S4] ^ Fagani, Aged about 45 years; vv/o. Kapil Kunrii, Occupation Kashtkari, R/o. village - Aamora, Post Bijabhat, Tahsil - Bemetara, Distnct - Durg (CG) Lagani W/o. Darman Kurmi, Aged about 41 years, Occupatton - Kashtkan, R/o. Village - Hathmudt, Post - Bemetara, Tahsii - Bemetara, District - Durg (CG) Thagan-i, Aged about 39 years, 'w/o- Ramhu, Occupation Kashtkar;, R/0. Vulage-Kandai, Post—Ninawa, Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Durg (CG) ^ ^' y 6] Thagiya W/o- Pitambar @ Santosh ^' Kurmi, Aged about 28 years, Occupation - Kasbtkan, R/o. Village Jiya, Post - JewaFa, Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Durg (CG) 7] Ramdhars S/Q. Jivrakhan Kurmi, Aged about 33 years, 8] AAanirarrs S/o. Jivrakhan Kurmi, ^- Aged about 33 years, ] Aamin Wd/o. Ramnath Kurmi, Aged about 43 years/ ^JO] Charsdu S/o. Ramnath Kurmi, Aged about 25 years, 1T] Dhelau S/o. RasTsrsath Kurmi, Aged about 22 years, 12] Dhela Bai D/o. Ramnath Kurmi, Aged about 19 years, [Defendants] Resp.No. 7 to 12- Occupation - Kashtkar and all resident of Village - Karchuva, Post Karesara, Tahsil - Bemetara, Distt. - Durg (CG) CtVIL REVSSSON SECTSQN 115 QF^QDE QF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^ p XI-HC-78 ^n^T^fe^ cT^TT 3T1^T C^W *11+1^1 Sh+lich 3:oET ^iNKn^, ^^^(0, fctcrtl<l^< c-e., NO • ^ ^ ^ 200^ P?T^5(ch 5^<iTa;K^f?cr3TT^r 15.11.2006 Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Shri D.C. Vemia, leamed | Heard on adimssion. The appUcant/defendant dated 15.9.2005 deUvered by flie| in Civil Appeal No. 01-B/2004| 19.1.2004 passed by fhe Ad<U.| 140-B/2002. Brieffacts are tfaat Dhamt'am Awatar for recovery ofRs. 10^ borrowed a sum ofRs. 3,000/- an{! Jivrakhan. AU fhe legal repesen^atives Suit No. 140-B/2002 and admittN pleadmg of rq)&yment of the enter the witoess box in tihe loweb" place reliance on flie testimot(y examined by the defendant on fh|e and the quantity of 6 quintals o^ after acknowledging fhe same oi^ repayment of the loan would not| Jivrakhan. Leamed coimsel for fhel M.P.W.N No-10 while contend4g succession certificate was not filt bofh fhe Courte below have faUedl to chi^f^41Ti wi^ff ^* te^it^i^K ^3:ri^T3TT^T ^eamed counsel for fhe applicant. ^oumel for non-applicatit N6. 1. ^ aggrieved by tfae judginent and deeree |AddL District Judge, Bemetera, ©istt.Durg afiBnmiig fhe jw^ment and decree dated Civil Judge, Class-I in Civil Case No. ^•am had instituted a Civil Siiit agaiiist Ram };00/- on tfae ground fhat Ram Awatar had 6 quintals of soyabean &om Ms late fafher of Jivraldian were parties to the CM1 the claim of Ifae plaintiff. To prove ite ^ the defendant/applicant herein, did not Court. Botfa fhe Courte below refused to of witoesses Gangadhar and Bukhan ground Ifaat since fhe loan ofRs. 3,000/- soyabean was borrowed by R<mi Awatar a document it was highly improbable Ihat |have been got aoknowledged by Uim from applicant placed reliatice on 1980 (2) that tfie smt was not xnaintainable smce ^d by fhe plaintifif. He also contended fhat exercise jimsdiction wsted in them on a XI-HC-78 ^T3CJ ^I^C^I ShHI<sh T^wwii, vi^\W[6, R)diy^<' C^'N^ q, ^ ^: 200^ ^n^T^rf^TNT cT^T3TR?T^Tp Priya 3T^7T ^9T (lic|i^<^T) '^RTTW ^cT 3TT^T mere assumption tfiat Jivrakhan w< loan by executing a document. Qi| counsel for the non-applieant Nc| +t^fd^^ w^rr" ^'te^f^^n; ^ ^ ^ 3:rf^T3TT^T ^irid have acknowteaged the repaymeni 01 Ifae ofher hand, Shri D.C. Vemia, leamed . 1 aigued m support of Ae irapugned judgment. Havmg comidered tfae rivajl submissions, this civU rewsion deserves to be dismissed m Itmine, AU 1h|e tegal representatives of Ihrokhan were brought on record as defendante a^id had adtnitted the cNm of fhe plaintijff. Non filing of the succession certi Uable to be dismissed. The case applicant is fhus distmguishat| icate would not tihierefore render tfae suit law cited by tihe leamed coimsel for fhe le, In view of the fact Ifaat fli© defendmLt/applicant did not enter ^he witness box and tfaat fhe drfendmt h^d borrowed the sum of Rs. 3,000/- |aind 6 quintals of soyabean from Jivrakjan was an adtnitted fact, I am of tl judgment and decree is well found^d and calls for no interference. Consequently, tMs civil w\ at fhe stage ofadmission. In view of the above, LA| disnrissed. C.C. as per ndes. |ie considered opmipn that fhe impugaed ^ision, being devoid of merit^ is dismiss^d No. 1046/2006, for grant of stay is also Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.