Sunil Kumar vs Ajay Kumar
2013 Latest Caselaw 4159 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             RSA 136/2012

                                 Decided on : 13th September, 2013

     SUNIL KUMAR                                     ..... Appellant

                       Through:        Mr.R.K.Dubey, Advocate.

                       Versus

     AJAY KUMAR                                   ..... Respondent

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J (ORAL)

CM No.13982/2013

1. This is an application for restoration of the present regular

second appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

have also gone through the record.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is

restored to its original number.

RSA No.136/2012

1. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard with

regard to the formulation of substantial question of law involved

in the present regular second appeal. However, I am satisfied

that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant

herein filed a suit for recovery of ``30,000/- (Civil Suit No.

566/2007) against the respondent for having done some contract

work (kaaj button) on some garments. Respondent herein had

denied the assignment of any work to the appellant. After

framing of issues, the learned trial court permitted the parties to

adduce the evidence and the suit for a sum of `30,000/- was

decreed in favour of the appellant along with interest at the rate

of 9% per annum on 03.11.2010. The respondent preferred an

appeal against the said judgment and decree which was heard

and disposed of by the learned ADJ on 09.04.2012. The learned

ADJ after revisiting the entire evidence, returned a finding that

the appellant has not been able to prove any assignment of work

by the respondent to the appellant either orally or by the

documents produced by him nor was he able to establish that the

rate of work assigned to him was `1.75 per piece. The learned

ADJ has given detailed reasons of the same in para nos. 8 to 16

in this regard.

3. I have gone through the impugned judgment and do not

find infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and certainly it is

not the case of the appellant that the judgment of the first

appellate court suffers from any perversity.

4. Merely because this is the second appellate court and it

can on re-appreciation of evidence arrive at a contrary finding,

itself cannot be a ground to substitute its own opinion in place of

the opinion returned by the first appellate court. This being a

regular second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has

to show to the court that any substantial question of law is

involved.

5. Since there is no substantial question of law arising from

the present appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013/dm