9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Senior Division), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.,in case No.106I of 2005, whereby suit having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') for recovery of Rs. 58, 266.00/, came to be decreed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff, which is a firm duly registered under Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 filed suit for recovery in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., averring therein that appellant-defendant( hereinafter 'defendant'), who is a registered Government Contractor had been purchasing food grains and other articles from the plaintiff's shop. As per plaintiff, total outstanding amount again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovery of Rs. 58,266/alongwith interest as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is false and frivolous?. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 6. Relief: 5.Subsequently, vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2007 learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 50,000/alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit till actual realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, appellant-defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below and as such, this Court finds it difficult to reappraise /re-appreciate the evidence, especially in view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Courts below. 9. Plaintiff with a view to substantiate his aforesaid claim examined himself as PW1 and deposed that defendant, who is a Government Contractor, approached them for the purchase of food grains. He further stated that defendant was making the purchase on credit basis and the accounts were to be settled on 1.4.2003. It has specifically come in the statement of this witness that defendant had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/in favour of the plaintiff, but when said cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that sum of Rs. 50,000/was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. In his cross-examination, he stated that defendant called him from place Oddi through landline call. He also stated that money was handed over to Chiranji Lal and there were 23 persons present at the spot. 13. DW3, Puran Chand deposed that defendant handed over a sum of Rs. 50,000/to the plaintiff and the accounts were finalized. In his cross-examination, he stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/was paid to one man aged 40-45 years. 14. If the aforesaid oral statements having been made by the defendants witnesses are read juxtaposing each other, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements. DW1 stated that he handed over cash to plaintiff Vijay Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the plaintiff being holder of the cheque. No doubt, such presumption is rebuttal, but no evidence has been led on record to probablise the defence taken by the defendant. 16. Having perused the material available on record, this Court is fully satisfied and convinced that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264, wherein it has been held as under: "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, as such, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Moreover, learned representing the appellant-defendant was unable to point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and as such, same do not call for any interference.
19. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence, be it ocular or documentary on the record and, as such, present appeal fails and same is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
