Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12584 MP
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2973 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
GANESH RAM S/O SURAJ PRAKASH GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O UTSAV VATIKA OPPOSTE PVT.
BUS STAND MADHAV CHOUK DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(APPELLANT IN PERSON ALONGWITH HIS FATHER )
AND
MANOJ RAJPUT S/O RAMBHAROSE RAJPUR, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O RAGHVENDRA NAGAR COLONY
AB ROAD SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by appellant/defendant against the concurring judgment and decree dated 31/8/2018 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 75/2015 confirming the judgment and decree dated 4/11/2015 passed by First Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.01-B/2015. The Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 1 Lac received by appellant for his personal required has been decreed.
2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1 lac which according to respondent has been taken by appellant for his personal requirement and when respondent asked him for repayment, it is alleged that defendant did not pay the same and also abused the plaintiff and therefore, after following all due formalities, suit was filed.
3 Appellant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff and defendant are not known to each other and no amount was ever received by the defendant from plaintiff. It is been further pointed out that plaintiff was required to clear all conditions. Unnamed cheque was for the purpose of return of money and Promissory note was only for the
purpose of collateral security. By playing fraud, plaintiff is trying to take money from defendant which is illegal. When no loan was taken, there is no question of repayment.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed as many as seven issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, decreed the suit.
5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal again re- appreciated the evidence brought before it. The first appellate court found that loan was taken from the firm and not from the plaintiff and therefore, there is no substance in the plea of defendant that he does not know the plaintiff. Even Court found that defendant admitted taking of loan of Rs. 1 Lac from the plaintiff through cheque and held that the trial Court did not err in passing the impugned judgment and decree, and thus, after re appreciation of evidence, upheld the judgment of trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
6 . After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The
findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Admission declined. Appeal is dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-
JAI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
PRAKASH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179c ec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B 8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8 DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.05.06 10:26:00 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!