Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Ratan Garments vs Ashok Kumar Jasuja on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 100/2022
1. M/s Ratan Garments, Cloth Merchant At Present M/s
Bhawna Emporium, Cloth Merchant, Mandi Rawatsar
Through Partner Firm Rameshwar Lal Chandora S/o Hajari
Lal Through Firm M/s Pooja Sweets, Pallu Road, In Front
Of Cinema, Mandi Rawatsar Distt. Hanumangarh.
2. Rameshwar Lal Chandora, S/o Hajari Lal Partner Firm,
M/s Ratan Garmets, Cloth Merchant At Present M/s
Bhawna Emporium, Cloth Merchant, Mandi Rawatsar
Through Firm M/s Pooja Sweets, Pallu Road, In Front Of
Cinema, Mandi Rawatsar Distt. Hanumangarh.
3. Ravi Kumar, S/o Rameshwar Lal Chandora Partner Firm,
M/s Ratan Garmets, Cloth Merchant At Present M/s
Bhawna Emporium, Cloth Merchant, Mandi Rawatsar
Through Firm M/s Pooja Sweets, Pallu Road, In Front Of
Cinema, Mandi Rawatsar Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar Jasuja S/o Deewan Chand Jasuja, Proprietor Firm
M/s K.D. Enterprises, Cloth Merchant, Shop No. 44, New Cloth
Market, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Prakash Prajapat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Judgment
12/05/2022
The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC
has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2022
passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Shri
Ganganagar in Civil Appeal No. 07/2016, whereby appeal
preferred by defendants against the judgment and decree dated
18.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
(2 of 3) [CSA-100/2022]
Shri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 93/2010 (81/07) was
dismissed.
The plaintiff - respondent herein had filed a suit for
recovery of money which was allowed by the trial court. Appeal
filed by the defendants - appellants herein against the judgment
and decree of the trial court was also dismissed. Hence, this
second appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants at
admission stage and perused the impugned judgment and decree
of both the courts below.
During arguments, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the burden to prove the issue No.1 has wrongly been
imposed upon the defendants - appellants. Learned trial court
also committed error in dismissing the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 25 CPC seeking framing of additional issues.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that plaintiff
has also committed error in not making Ramdev as party in the
suit, who as per plaintiff's case received the goods on behalf of
defendants. Plaintiff also did not take any steps to produce
Ramdev as witness. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants and after perusing the impugned
judgment and decree, this Court is of the opinion that no
substantial questions of law are involved in this case for
consideration of this Court. Both the courts below arrived at the
conclusion that plaintiff is sole proprietor of firm K.D. Enterprises.
After framing required issues, judgment and decree was passed by
the learned trial court appreciating the evidence of the parties,
(3 of 3) [CSA-100/2022]
which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. In view of the
concurrent finding of facts, the appeal being devoid of any merit is
dismissed at admission stage.
Stay application also stands dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J
35-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
