Second appeal against dismissal regarding a civil suit for recovery of movable property or its price. The High Court held no substantial question of law existed and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal stood dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 829 OF 2005
Balasaheb Shankar Patil ... Appellant
(Ori.Plaintiff)
V/s
Central Engineering Company ... Respondents
Mr. S.M. Railkar for the appellant.
Mr. J.G. Gaikwad for the respondents.
CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.
DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2005
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Perused
the record.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment and order passed by the Addl. District Judge,
Kolhapur, dated 29.4.1998 dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and order passed by the Jt.
Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Kolhapur dated 25.8.1992
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the extent that
the defendant was directed to pay the amount of Rs.775/-
to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
2
till satisfaction.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is clear
that there is absolutely no substantial question of law
involved in this appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit
against the defendant for recovery of certain movable
property i.e. three tyres or alternatively for the
price of tyres. When the request for return of tyres or
price thereof was not heeded, the plaintiff filed the
suit.
Defendant contested the suit inter-alia denying the
liability for return of the goods. The learned Trial
Judge adjudicated the dispute on merits and came to the
conclusion that the plaintiff was not in possession of
three tyres and that the defendant had avoided to
deliver the goods, however, alternative relief for price
of the goods came to be decreed.
The appeal was carried to the District Court. The
learned Addl. District Judge, after hearing both
parties, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present
appeal.
4. At the outset, it may be noted earlier that, there
3
is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in
this case. The reasonings adopted and findings recorded
by both the Courts below show that evidence on record is
properly appreciated and, therefore, I hold that the
appeal is devoid of any merits and, as such, stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in this appeal for disposal of the second appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balasaheb Shankar Patil
Central Engineering Company
P.V. KAKADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court