Purusottam Sahu vs Smt.Sushila Jain
2021 Latest Caselaw 1204 Chatt

                              1

                                                             NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   SA No. 452 of 2012

   Purusottam Sahu, S/o Sarju Ji Sahu Aged About 48
    Years,    Risali    Sector,       Q.No.    288/B,       Risali
    Bhilai, P.S. Nawai, Tah. & Distt. Durg C.G.

                                                   ­­­­ Appellant

                           Versus

   Smt. Sushila Jain W/o Ashok Jain Aged About 45
    Years    Matri   Nagar,       Phase    No.1,    House    No.3,
    Street No. 7/D, Near Hanuman Mandir, Matrinagar,
    Bhilai, P.S. Nawai, Tah. & Distt. Durg C.G.

                                               ­­­­ Respondent

For Appellant :­ Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

16/07/2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken

up through video conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in second appeal

preferred by the appellant / defendant.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellant / defendant

affirming the judgment and decree of the trial

Court.

4. Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the

appellant / defendant, submits that both the

Courts below have concurrently erred in

granting decree for grant of ₹.40,000/­

alongwith 6% interest by recording a finding

which is perverse to the record and, as such,

the appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing

by formulating substantial question of law for

determination.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellants / defendant, considered his rival

submissions and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

6. The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery

of ₹.40,000/­ alongwith interest. The trial

Court granted decree holding that the

defendant has taken ₹.50,000/­ from the

plaintiff and ₹.10,000/­ has returned by the

defendant to plaintiff but for remaining

amount cheque was issued by the defendant

which was become dishonoured and, therefore,

plaintiff is entitled for ₹.40,000/­ alongwith

the interest.

7. The trial Court upon appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence available on record

granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff

which has been affirmed by the first appellate

Court. Two Courts below have concurrently

recorded a finding that the defendant have

taken ₹.50,000/­ from the plaintiff and only

he paid ₹.10,000/­, therefore, plaintiff is

entitled for ₹.40,000/­ alongwith 6% interest.

8. The aforesaid finding recorded by two Courts

below is finding of fact based on evidence

available on record. It is neither perverse

nor contrary to the records, as such, I do not

find any substantial question of law for

admission of this second appeal.

9. Accordingly, the second appeal being deviod of

merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

in limine without notice to other side. No

cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Ankit