Dismissed¶21

Shivaji Punjaji Panjarkar v. Ghanshyam Ratanlal Bang

Bombay HC22 Apr 2025SA/85/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Second Appeal No. 85 of 2025; decided 22/04/2025 by Rohit W. Joshi, J.; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:4253; Shivaji Punjaji Panjarkar (original defendant/appellant) v. Ghanshyam Ratanlal Bang (original plaintiff/respondent); Section 100 CPC; second appeal; substantial question of law; perverse findings; re-appreciation of evidence; partnership; cancellation of partnership deed Exh.36; notice dated 04/09/2014 Exh.48; blank stamp paper; forged/fabricated document plea; recovery of Rs.15,00,000/-; concurrent decrees; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to appellant; the second appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. ¶21

Shivaji Punjaji Panjarkar Vs Ghanshyam Ratanlal Bang — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to appellant; the second appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below, resting on the defendant's admitted liability of Rs.15,00,000/- under the cancellation-of-partnership deed (Exh.36), are perverse so as to give rise to a substantial question of law permitting interference in the second appeal. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The defendant's stands are self-contradictory (signature on blank stamp paper versus being forced by the plaintiff to sign) and the contradiction cannot be reconciled; the signature on the document wherein liability to make payment of Rs.15,00,000/- is admitted is not in dispute.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The findings recorded by the learned Courts are based on appreciation of evidence; re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible having regard to the limited scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the observations of the learned Courts cannot be said to be perverse by any stretch of imagination.

¶19

Key takeaways

In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) - Suit for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- founded on a cancellation-of-partnership deed (Exh.36) recording the defendant's liability to pay the plaintiff - Defendant advanced mutually contradictory pleas: before the Courts below that his signature on Exh.36 was obtained on blank stamp paper and misused, but in notice dated 04/09/2014 (Exh.48) that he was forced by the plaintiff to sign - Held: the contradictory stands cannot be reconciled and the signature on the document admitting liability is not in dispute; the concurrent findings are based on appreciation of evidence, are not perverse by any stretch of imagination, and re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible within the limited scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - No substantial question of law arises - Second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; pending civil applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:4253

¶2

1 920-J-SA-85-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2025

¶5

APPELLANT : Shivaji Punjaji Panjarkar,
(Org.Dfdt.) Aged about 61 years,
On R.A. Occ. Business,
 R/o. Kali Fail, Washim,
 Dist. Washim.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

RESPONDENT : Ghanshyam Ratanlal Bang,
(Org.Plff)Age about 60 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o. Mannasinh Chauk,
 Near Swagat Lawn,
 Washim, Dist. Washim.

¶8

Shri Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for appellant.

¶9

CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 22/04/2025.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

1. The original defendant who has suffered concurrent decrees

¶12

in a suit for recovery filed against the respondent, has filed the present
second appeal.

¶13

2.The contention raised by the learned advocate for the
appellant is that the respondent - plaintiff has failed to prove that he
had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellant - defendant. The
learned advocate contends that in the absence of any evidence
demonstrating the payment of Rs.15,00,000/-, both Courts have erred
in granting the decree for recovery of money in the said amount in
favour of the respondent - plaintiff. He states that the finding of fact

¶14

2 920-J-SA-85-2025.doc

¶15

although cannot normally be interfered with in the second appeal, in the
absence of any evidence to support the alleged payment of
Rs.15,00,000/-, the findings recorded by the learned Courts are perverse
and perverse findings do give rise to a substantial question of law.

¶16

3.I have perused the Judgments delivered by both the learned
Courts. The parties have initially entered into a partnership. The parties
have thereafter, executed a document for cancellation of partnership.
The said document is at Exh.36. It is recorded in the said document that
the plaintiff is parting with the partnership firm against an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid to him by the defendant.

¶17

4.Perusal of the Judgment passed by the learned Courts would
indicate that the defendant had come up with a case that his signature
on the document of cancellation of partnership at Exh.36 was obtained
on blank stamp paper and the said signature was misused to fabricate
the document at Exh.36. As against such case set up during the course
of trial, in the notice dated 04/09/2014 at Exh.48, the defendant has
raised a contention that he was forced by the plaintiff to sign the said
document. The stand taken by the defendant is self-contradictory. The
contradiction in the stand taken cannot be reconciled. It is apparent that
the signature on the document wherein the liability to make payment of
Rs.15,00,000/- is admitted, is not in dispute. The learned Courts have
held that the defendant is a Civil Contractor working with various

¶18

3 920-J-SA-85-2025.doc

¶19

Government Departments and he will not sign the blank stamp paper
and hand over the same to any person. The finding recorded by the
learned Courts is based on appreciation of evidence. Re-appreciation of
evidence is not permissible having regard to the limited scope of Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I find that the observations of the
learned Courts in the Judgments cannot be said to be perverse by any
stretch of imagination.

¶20

5.In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration in the present second appeal.

¶21

6. The second appeal stands dismissed with no order as to

¶22

costs.

¶23

7.Since the second appeal is dismissed, civil applications
pending if any, are disposed of accordingly.

¶24

 [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]

¶25

Choulwar

Shivaji Punjaji Panjarkar v. Ghanshyam Ratanlal Bang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Punjaji Panjarkar v. Ghanshyam Ratanlal Bang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kjv Alloy Conductors Private Limited, Its Director - Jyotindra G. Patel, Nagpur vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Thr. Its Secretary (Administration), Kerala

Pralhad S/O Bhagwan Dahalke vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim and Others

The Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project Division, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs Sharad Manikrao Burghate and 2 Others

Suresh S/O Ramkrishna Telang(Since Deceased) through Lrs., Panchfula Wd/O Suresh Telang and 3 Other vs Kawdu S/O Urkuda Telang

Mirza Aslam Kalim Baig and Others vs Shamlal Baijyanath Gupta

Suresh S/O Ramkrishna Telang(Since Deceased) through Lrs., Panchfula Wd/O Suresh Telang and 3 Other vs Kawdu S/O Urkuda Telang