Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Singh vs Niranjan Kumar Nanawati ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:45051]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 76/2023
Madan Singh S/o Kan Singh Sindal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Sirohi, at Present Aburoad, District Sirohi.
----Appellant
Versus
Niranjan Kumar Nanawati S/o Shri Babulal, R/o Sirohi District
Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
14/10/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) has been filed by the
appellant - defendant against the judgment and decree dated
21.11.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirohi
(hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Appellate Court') in Civil
First Appeal No.04/2019 whereby, the judgment and decree dated
18.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter
referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Civil Original Suit
No.66/2015 has been affirmed.
2. The facts in brief for the purpose of present second appeal
are that the respondent - plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
money for a sum of Rs. 94,000/- from the appellant - defendant.
In the Plaint, it was stated on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff
that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 80,000/- to the appellant -
defendant on 18.05.2014. The appellant - defendant gave his
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 10:13:09 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45051] (2 of 3) [CSA-76/2023]
assurance to repay the money lent to him by the respondent -
plaintiff within a period of three months. In the plaint, it was
further stated that since the respondent - plaintiff was having old
acquaintance with the appellant - defendant, no written loan
agreement was executed between the parties. It was further
contended that the appellant - defendant, in lieu of the loan
advanced to him by the respondent - plaintiff had issued a
Cheque No.515653 dated 18.08.2014 amounting to Rs. 80,000/-
to the respondent - plaintiff. However, later on he requested the
respondent - plaintiff not to present the cheque for enhancement
and assured that the cheque amount will be repaid in cash.
3. The learned Trial Court, to decide the money recovery suit
filed on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff, framed as many as
three issues and decided the issue No.1 and 2 being fundamental
issues against the appellant - defendant. While deciding the issue
Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Trial Court has held that on the basis of
the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it by
the respondent - plaintiff which has been established on record
that respondent - plaintiff has advanced a loan of Rs. 80,000/- to
the appellant - defendant and in lieu of the loan taken by the
appellant - defendant, a cheque No.515653 dated 18.08.2014 was
given to the respondent - plaintiff. The issue No.2 was also
decided against the appellant - defendant. The appeal filed by the
appellant - defendant against the judgment and decree dated
18.05.2019 passed by the learned trial Court came to be
dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and
decree dated 21.11.2022 affirming the findings of facts recorded
by the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Court after
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 10:13:09 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45051] (3 of 3) [CSA-76/2023]
considering the evidence available on record in detail has held that
the findings of facts recorded by the learned trial Court are
correct.
4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the appellant and upon perusal of the judgments passed by the
learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Courts below have considered the documentary as well as oral
evidence in its true perspective and spirit. A perusal of the
evidence recorded by the learned trial Court would indicate that
the cheque No.515653 dated 18.08.2014 was handed over by the
appellant - defendant himself to the respondent - plaintiff in lieu
of the loan advanced by the respondent - plaintiff to appellant-
defendant.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no question of law, much less, no
substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal
filed by the appellant - defendant under Section 100 of the CPC,
which requires adjudication by this Court
6. There is no merit in the present second appeal and
therefore, the same is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
25-Dinesh/-
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 10:13:09 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
