Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Jawahar P Purohit on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/326/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 326 of 2025
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Versus
JAWAHAR P PUROHIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJABHAI J GOGDA(3628) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Second April has been filed under section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('cpc', for short), challenging the
judgement and decree, dated 31.12.2024, passed by 4th Additional District
Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.47 of 2016 whereby the said
appeal is allowed and judgement and decree dated 30.03.2016, passed by
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No.654
of 2003 has been quashed and set aside.
2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as per the their
original status as that of in the suit.
3.1 The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are that, the
plaintiff BSNL had provided telephonic connection to the defendant and
outstanding amount of Rs.93,243/- was to be recovered from defendant
and notice to that effect was also served by the defendant, on 01.09.2003
and as defendant failed to make payment, plaintiff filed civil suit for
recovery.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/326/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
3.2 The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement
vide Exh.79. The trial Court framed issues vide Exh.16, which reads as
under:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is tehir agent or
was a telephone connection holder of the plaintiff ?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the an outstanding amount of
Rs.93,243/- is due to the plaintiff from the defendant ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
4) What order and decree ?
3.3 The plaintiff examined himself vide Exh.25 and the witness of the
plaintiff examined, at Exh.56 and after considering the oral and
documentary evidence and after giving findings on all the issues, trial
Court decreed the said suit and ordered the defendants to pay Rs.93,205/-
with running interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing
the suit till its realisation.
3.3 Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed, Regular Civil
Appeal No.47 of 2016 and after re-appreciating the evidence, the
appellate Court allowed the said appeal quashing and setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Second
Appeal.
4.1 Learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the appellate
Court has not appreciated the facts of the case and that the defendant had
failed to produce any evidence on record to rebutt the evidence under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/326/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4.2 Moreover, it has also been argued by learned advocate for the
plaintiff that the defendant has neither entered the witness box, nor has
produced any document to prove the case of the defendant and, therefore,
the appellate Court could not have quashed and set aside the judgment
and decree of the trial Court and, therefore, there are substantial questions
of law involved in the present case and, therefore, the present Second
Appeal is required to be admitted on the following substantial questions
of law, which have been suggested in memo of appeal.
(i) Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in law in allowing
the Regular Civil Appeal of the defendant - respondent herein,
without considering the facts and evidence established on
record before the Trial Court, in its true and correct spirit ?
(ii) Whether the impugned Judgment and the Decree passed by the
Hon'ble First Appellate Court is perverse, erroneous, illegal
and contrary to the actual facts on record ?
(iii) Whether the Hon'ble First Appellate Court was justified in law,
to discard the offical documentary evidence vide Exhibit - 27
and 28 in the Suit proceedings, for reversing the judgment and
decree passed by the learned Trial Court ?
(iv) Whether the Hon'ble First Appellate Court below have
substantially erred in law in not appreciating the true and
correct scope of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?
5.1 Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiff and having
considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/326/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
judgment and decree of the appellate Court, quashing and setting aside
the decree of the trial Court, the fact remains that the plaintiff has
examined his witness vide Exh.25 and in cross-examination, he has
admitted that he could not identify the signature of the plaintiff in the
plaint which is at Exh.1. Moreover, he has also stated in his cross-
examination that he does not know the person who has signed the plaint
at Exh.1.
5.2 Moreover, the witness of the plaintiff has also stated that he has no
personal knowledge of the documents, which are produced on record.
Moreover, he has also stated as to who had prepared documents, who had
signed the documents are not within his knowledge and though said
witness has come to support the case of the plaintiff as a successor in
office, who at the relevant point of time had filed the suit, but the fact
remains that the said witness was ignorant of the documents on which
plaintiff relied on. Moreover, other witness of the plaintiff who had been
examined vide Exh.56, categorically stated that he has no personal details
regarding documents that have been produced on record. Therefore, there
is nothing on record to show as to how plaintiff is entitled for Rs.93,436/-
as outstanding amount from the defendant. Moreover, original subscriber
record card produced vide Exh.27, itself has shown the amount under
different heads for different bills and plaintiff could not know how these
amounts are shown in the bills. In view of the same, the plaintiff has
miserably failed to prove the case.
6. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v.
Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/326/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
"28. It is thus clear that under Section 100 CPC, the
High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final
Court of facts except in such cases where such findings
were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory
provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of
the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based
upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence."
7. Under the circumstances, this Second Appeal is devoid of any
substantial question of law. The first appellate Court has rightly decided
the issue between the parties in the right perspective and as stated above
no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appellants
have failed to prove their case before the first appellate Court. This Court
does not find any substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is
devoid of any merit both on facts and law and the same is dismissed, at
the admission stage.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
