Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahalad Singh vs Vimal Sri Jwellers Proprietor Aashish ... on 22 May, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2382 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRAHALAD SINGH S/O SHRI SAMRATH SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, CASTE RAGHUVANSHI,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM SAVAN
TEHSIL DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
VIMAL SRI JWELLERS PROPRIETOR AASHISH JAIN S/O
SHRI VIMAL KUMAR JAIN R/O MAHAVIR MARG
GANDHI PARK DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h i s appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by
appellant/defendant against the concurring judgment and decree dated
3/7/2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Ashoknagar, in Civil Appeal
No.12/2023 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16/1/2023 passed by
Presiding Officer of Court of Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, District
Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No. 3-B/2021. The Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff
for recovery of Rs. 32,295/- against the defendant 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. 32,295/- against the
defendant pleading that plaintiff is having jewellery shop and well known to
defendant and defendant usually used to visit his shop and thus having cordial
relations, defendant on 23/3/2018 purchased some gold ornaments from his
shop amounting to Rs. 32,295/- however, defendant did not pay the amount of
gold and when after repeated request, amount was not paid, after following all
due process, the suit was filed.
3 Appellant/defendant filed written statement denying the plaint
allegations. It is specifically pleaded that he never purchased any ornaments
from the plaintiff and the bill in questions are forged one, hence, no question of
payment arises.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed as many as four
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
plaintiff proved his case beyond reasonable doubt from evidence documentary
as well as oral and therefore, 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/- Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
JAI PRAKASH
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec8
65c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
SOLANKI postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B807
2A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B5
22, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.05.27 11:22:26 +05'30'
