Laxminarayan Namdeo vs Babu Khan
2023 Latest Caselaw 16798 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 10 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                                CIVIL REVISION No. 746 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           LAXMINARAYAN NAMDEO S/O SURAJMAL NAMDEO IN
                           FRONT OF MUKATI PETROL PUMP ASHTA DISTT.
                           SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           BABU KHAN S/O RAJJAB QURESHI BADODIYA GADRI
                           WALE IN FRONT OF QURESHIAN MASJID KASAIPURA
                           CHOURAHA ASHTA DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT


                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the judgement and decree dated 03.10.2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Ashta, District Sehore in RCA No.10-A/2016 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ashta, District Sehore in Civil Suit No.04-B/15, whereby learned trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.24,800/-, which in appeal has been dismissed.

2. In the light of provisions contained in Section 102 CPC, the Second Appeal no.40/2017 was converted into civil revision and has come in hearing Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA Signing time: 10/12/2023 10:42:13 AM

today for admission.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that by way of promissory note dated 03.07.2014, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was given by plaintiff to the defendant which despite making demand, was not repaid by the defendant, therefore, civil suit was filed on 28.04.2015.

4. Learned counsel submits that upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence especially the admitted promissory note, learned trial Court decreed the suit but in the civil appeal filed by the defendant/respondent learned first appellate Court on its own wrong assumptions and inspite of admission of the defendant/respondent, reversed the judgment and decree of

learned trial Court and dismissed the suit.

5. Learned counsel submits that in view of the admission regarding execution of the promissory note, learned first appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing the civil revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and perused the record.

7. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is said to have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant on 03.07.2014 on the basis of promissory note (Ex.P/1) in presence of the witness- Mukesh Namdeo (P.W-2). The defendant has denied to have received an amount of Rs.20,000/- as well as execution of promissory note, however, he has admitted his signature on the promissory note but he says that he took an amount of Rs.10,000/- only and he has denied to have written receipt of an amount of Rs.20,000/- on promissory note.

8. Learned first appellate Court after appreciation of the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the witness to the promissory note, has come to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA Signing time: 10/12/2023 10:42:13 AM

the conclusion that in fact, no transaction of Rs.20,000/- took place in between the plaintiff and defendant and has found the promissory note to be a suspicious document. It is well settled that re-appreciation of oral evidence in the civil revision is not permissible.

9. Upon perusal of the entire record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court.

10. Resultantly, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE anu

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA Signing time: 10/12/2023 10:42:13 AM