[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Enterprises vs M/S Paras Medical Stores & Anr. on 9 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64669
1 CR-356-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
CIVIL REVISION No. 356 of 2005
PANKAJ ENTERPRISES
Versus
M/S PARAS MEDICAL STORES & ANR.
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Sarwate- Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 20/11/2025)
(Pronounced on : 09 /12/2025)
The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated
10.03.2005 passed by the appellate court thereby it set-aside the judgment
and decree passed by the trial court dated 23.09.2004. The trial court had
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 but in appeal the
appellate court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 against
the defendants by imposing joint and several liability on the defendants. Now
the defendant No. 1 is in revision before this Court as the value of the claim
in the suit before the trial court was Rs. 8064/- and the said claim has been
decreed by the appellant court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this court in
revision that the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court
suffers from perversity as it is contrary to the facts of the case and based
upon misconstruction of the evidence adduced on record by the rival
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64669
2 CR-356-2005
parties. It is argued that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court
deserves to be maintained and the judgment and decree passed by the
appellate court deserves to be set aside to meet the ends of justice.
3. It is argued that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his
case before the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
that even in the plaint the case of the plaintiff was that he was under
obligation to pay an amount of Rs. 8961/- to the defendant No. 1 and just to
get over that liability of Rs. 8961/- to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had
cooked up a false story that on 14-12-2020 he had sent medicines worth
Rs.13,550/- to the defendant No. 1 and apart from that, a medical
representative Shri Kalidas Magar had come down to Balaghat and he had
then handed over some further medicines valuing Rs. 3475/- to the said
medical representative and therefore the total value of medicines given by
the plaintiff to defendant No.1 was alleged to be to the tune of Rs. 17,025/-
and this aspect of the matter of admission of the plaintiff that he was under
obligation to pay an amount of Rs 8961/- to the defendant No. 1 has not been
taken into consideration by the appellate court while reversing the judgment
and decree of the trial court. Therefore it is argued that this court should
interfere in the judgment and decree of appellate court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction.
4. None has appeared for the plaintiff though served, and none has
entered appeared for the defendant No. 2 before this court.
5. Upon hearing the counsel for the applicant and upon perusal of
the record of the trial court as well as the appellate court, it is seen that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64669
3 CR-356-2005
suit was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 on the allegation that the
plaintiff was retailer of medicines of M/s. Richie Pharmaceutical Limited and
the defendant No. 1 was distributor of that company. The plaintiff used to
take medicines on credit from the distributor-defendant No. 1 and in this
manner medicines worth Rs. 8961/- were given to him on credit by the
defendant No. 1, but on the contrary, he had returned medicines worth Rs.
17,025/- to the said distributor defendant No.1 and after deducting the
amount outstanding against the plaintiff, still a balance amount of Rs. 8064/-
was required to be refunded to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1.
6. It is clear from the plaint averments itself that the plaintiff has
duly taken note of and has duly deducted the amount which was payable by
the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 and had filed the suit only for the balance
amount. Therefore, the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the
applicant before this court does not seem to be substantiated.
7. This court has gone through the entire record of the trial court
and it is seen that there is a goods return memo Exhibit P-2 dated 28-12-2020
mentioning various medicines being returned. Another return memo is
Annexure P-3 dated 30-08-2020 containing receipt of Kalidas Magar,
(Medical Representative). The credit invoice issued by the present petitioner-
defendant No. 1 was also brought on record as per which the plaintiff was
under obligation to pay an amount of Rs. 8961/- to the defendant No. 1. The
manufacturing company had also issued a letter Annexure P/5 whereby the
company had acknowledged that it has received various medicines from the
plaintiff through the defendant No. 1, but some of the medicines have been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64669
4 CR-356-2005
returned back after the buffer period of 6 months and the plaintiff was called
upon to explain the lapse on his part before settlement is taken in
consideration. The transporter's receipt of transport of goods from the
plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 was also placed on record as Exhibit P/6. The
plaintiff himself had entered in the witness box and he duly proved the fact
that he had sent medicines to the defendant No. 1 by two modes. He was
extensively cross-examined by the defendant No.1 but nothing could be
brought out in his cross-examination to demolish the case of the plaintiff.
8. Upon having gone through the entire evidence, so also the
judgment and decree under challenge, this court is unable to convince itself
that the judgment and degree passed by the appellate court suffers from any
perversity so as to warrant interference by this court under
revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of CPC. There is no error of
jurisdiction, nor the findings seem to be perverse to the oral evidence and
documentary evidence placed on record.
9. Consequently, finding no reason to interfere in the well-
reasoned order of the appellate court, the revision is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
