Rajasthan High Court
Hanuman S/O Shri Laxminarayan vs Nandlal S/O Brajmohan (Deceased) on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/2019
Hanuman S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Phagi Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur
----Petitioner- Defendant
Versus
1. Nandlal S/o Brajmohan (Deceased), R/o Kheda Shri
Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.
1/1. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Nandlal Pareek, R/o Kheda
Shri Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.
1/2. Dwarka Prasad S/o Shri Nandlal Pareek, R/o Kheda Shri
Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.
1/3. Dinesh Chand S/o Shri Nandlal Pareek, R/o Kheda Shri
Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.
1/4. Smt. Pushpa D/o Shri Nandlal Pareek W/o Suresh Chand
Pareek, R/o Kheda Shri Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District
Jaipur.
1/5. Smt. Usha D/o Shri Nandlal Pareek W/o Madanmohan
Pareek, R/o Kheda Shri Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District
Jaipur.
1/6. Smt. Beena D/o Shri Nandlal Pareek W/o Radhyeshyam
Pareek, R/o Kheda Shri Hanumanji, Tehsil Phagi, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents-Plaintiff
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14/03/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : March 23rd, 2022
BY THE COURT:
This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the
petitioner--defendant (hereinafter `the defendant') against the judgment and
decree dated 13-11-2018 in Appeal No.124/2018 (03/2004) passed by
Additional District Judge Dudu, District Jaipur, whereby and whereunder
(2 of 4) [CR-30/2019]
dismissing his appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5-1-2004 in
Suit No.34/1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dudu, District Jaipur
whereby and whereunder the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter `the plaintiff') has
been held entitled to receive Rs.13,000/- with 6% p.a. interest from the date of
filing suit.
Heard learned counsel for defendant and perused impugned judgments and
decrees.
Facts of the case are that plaintiff Nandlal (since deceased) purchased
agricultural land measuring 11 bigha 1 biswa of Khasra No.6707 for a
consideration of Rs.1,53,000/- from one Narayan on 7-7-1993 and Rs.1 lac was
paid on 8-7-1993, of which transaction mediators were Ram Lal from the side of
Narayan and Hanuman (defendant) from the side of plaintiff. Remaining amount
Rs.53,000/- was paid to defendant for payment of the same to seller Narayan and
on 10-6-1996 mutation of the agricultural land was attested in favour of plaintiff.
However, the defendant Hanuman out of Rs.53,000/- paid only Rs.40,000/- to
seller Narayan and promised to pay Rs.13000/- after eight days. But he did not
pay the same amount Rs.13000/- and ultimately on 11-1-1997 denied to repay
the same. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a registered notice on 13-1-1997 and
thereafter filed suit before the trial court. The defendant filed written statement
and denied contents of the plaint.
The trial court on basis of pleadings of parties framed four issues. Plaintiff
examined three witnesses and exhibited three documents. Defendant also
(3 of 4) [CR-30/2019]
examined three witnesses, but did not produce any documentary evidence.
Considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decided all issues in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and vide judgment and decree
dated 5-1-2004 concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs.13,000/-
with 6% p.a. interest from the defendant. Appeal filed thereagainst by the
defendant also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 13-11-2018. Hence,
this revision petition.
Heard learned counsel for defendant and perused the material available on
record as also the written submissions filed by counsel for the petitioner-
defendant.
The impugned decree is for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,000/-, which
has been affirmed by the first appellate court. In view of specific bar by virtue of
Section 102 CPC, money decree having less than Rs.25,000/- is not assailable by
way of second appeal. However, to assail the money decree, the petitioner-
defendant has invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 CPC by
way of filing instant revision petition. The trial court has placed reliance on oral
statements made by plaintiff and his witnesses as also considered documents
produced by plaintiff. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that
fundamental document of sale deed and two material witnesses Narayan and Ram
Lal were not produced, hence, trial court should not have passed money decree,
cannot be appreciated at the stage of revision. Within the scope of Section 115
CPC, this court can examine material illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned
(4 of 4) [CR-30/2019]
judgments. Fact findings recorded by two courts below are not usually required to
be interfered with within the scope of Section 115 CPC. When the trial court has
found plaintiff's evidence sufficient to pass money decree for recovery of
Rs.13,000/-, which has been affirmed by the first appellate court, this court is not
inclined to re-appreciate the evidence to assess whether evidence is sufficient or
not to pass money decree. Even if, some better evidence could have been produced
on record, the evidence already produced on record may not be held to be
insufficient. No material irregularity/ illegality or jurisdictional error have been
committed by the trial court in passing the money decree for recovery of
Rs.13,000/- and which has been affirmed by the first appellate court. Hence, this
court is not inclined to interfere with finding of facts within the scope of Section
115 CPC, more particularly, when there is a statutory bar in entertaining second
appeal, by virtue of Section 102 CPC looking to the quantum of money decree as
Rs.13,000/- only less than Rs.25,000/-.
Accordingly, the revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Stay application also stands dismissed.
All pending application(s) if any also stands disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
