Dismissed

Giriraj Kumawat v. Purushottam Mali

Rajasthan HC25 Feb 2015CSA/20/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal was filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in a money recovery suit. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the findings that the appellant received money and failed to return it, holding the appeal devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant is dismissed. No costs.

Giriraj Kumawat Vs Purushottam Mali — Rajasthan HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015. Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat Vs. Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶2

Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶3

1/6

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶5

AT JODHPUR.

¶6

:: JUDGMENT ::

¶7

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015.

¶8

Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶11

Date of Judgment :::: 25^th February, 2015.

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶14

Appearance:

¶15

Mr. Anuj Sahlot, for the appellant-defendant.

¶16

<<>>

¶17

BY THE COURT :

¶18

This second appeal filed by the defendant is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Civil First Appeal No. 16/2010 “Giriraj Kumawat Vs. Purushottam Mali” who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant-Giriraj Kumawat and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nathdwara in Civil Original Case No. 48/2008 “Purushottam Mali Vs. Giriraj Kumawat” by which, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had decreed the

¶19

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015. Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat Vs. Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶20

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶21

2/6

¶22

suit filed by the plaintiff-Purushottam Mali seeking recovery of money to the tune of Rs.26,200/-.

¶23

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the defendant before the learned Trial Court, against the concurrent findings of the learned two Courts against him in relation to the money transaction in question.

¶24

The learned Trial Court, after framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement of the parties and leading of relevant evidence, in its order dated 28.08.2010 observed as under:-

¶25

“12. इस पकरण म� उभय पक� क� ओर स� ज� म�ख�क स�कय पस� � ह�ई ह� �थ� व�द# क� ओर स� ज� पल %य स�कय पस� � ह� उसक� पररश%लन क� पश��* एव, उपर�क ववस�/� ववव�चन क� पश��* पत�व�द# इस ववव�दक क� अपन� पक म� पम�खण� नह#, कर सक� ह� और इस �थय क� भ% पम�खण� नह#, कर सक� ह� कक उसन� ववव�दद� च�क क� र�शश व�द# क� अद� कर द# ह� और पत�व�द# द�र� च�क म�,गन� पर व�द# न� च�क फ�डन� कह� ह� । जबकक व�द# इस �थय क� अपन% स�कय क� म�धयम स� पम�खण� करन� म� प@णA रप स� सफल रह� ह� कक उसन� पत�व�द# क� 20,000/- रपय� क� र�शश उध�र द# और उक र�शश क� बदल� मय बय�ज क� श�A अन�स�र पत�व�द# न� यह ववव�दद� च�क व�द# क� ददय� �थ� उध�र द# गय% र�शश क� पत�व�द# न� व�द# क� अद� नह#, क� ह� । पत�व�द# क� ओर स�

¶26

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015. Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat Vs.

¶27

Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶28

Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶29

3/6

¶30

क�ई भ% स�कय व�द# क� अशभवचन� क� �णFन क� रप म� प�श नह#, क� ज� सक� ह� पररण�मसवरप यह ववव�दक पत�व�द# क� ववरद �थ� व�द# क� पक म� तनखणA� ककय� ज�� ह� । "

¶31

On the basis of its discussion, the learned Trial Court had passed the final order in the suit, which reads as under:-

¶32

:: आ द� श ::

¶33

14. अ� : व�द# क� ओर स� पस� � यह व�द ब�ब�* रपय� वस@ल# व�द# क� पक म� �थ� पत�व�द# क� ववरद सव%क�र ककय� ज�कर तनमन पक�र स� डFक� ककय� ज�� ह� -:

¶34

(1) व�द# पत�व�द# स� 20,000/- ब%स हज�र रपय� म@ल र�शश प�प करन� क� अधधक�र# ह�ग� ।

¶35

(2) व�द# पत�व�द# स� म@ल र�शश 20,000/- रपय� पर श�A अन�स�र च�क म� वखणA��न�स�र एक रपय� पत� स�कड� पत�म�ह क� दर स� ददन�,क 25.05.2005 स� द�व� द�यर# ददन�,क 19.01.2008 �क बय�ज क� 6,200/- रपय� प�प करन� क� अधधक�र# ह�ग� । इस पक�र व�द# पत�व�द# स� क�ल 26,200/- छब%स हज�र द� स� रपय� प�प करन� क� अधधक�र# ह�ग� ।

¶36

(3) व�द# पत�व�द# स� द�व� द�यर# ददन�,क 19.01.2008 स� द�व� डFक� �क �थ� द�व� डFक� स� रकम वस@ल# �क छ : पत�श� व�वOAक क� दर स� बय�ज भ% प�प करन� क� अधधक�र# ह�ग� ।

¶37

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015. Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat Vs.

¶38

Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶39

Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶40

4/6

¶41

(4) व�द# पत�व�द# स� व�द वयय तनयम�न�स�र प�प करन� क� अधधक�र# ह�ग� ।

¶42

(5) डFक� पच�A प/थक* स� तनयम�न�स�र तनशमA� ककय� ज�व� ।

¶43

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendantGiriraj Kumawat filed the first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Nathdwara namely, Civil First Appeal No. 16/2010 which was also dismissed on 08.10.2014 , while affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2010 of the learned Trial Court. While agreeing with the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court on issue No.1, the learned First Appellate Court observed as under:-

¶44

“11. इस पक�र �नक� स,खय� 1 क� स,ब,ध म� ज� तनषकOA अध%नसथ नय�य�लय द�र� तनक�ल� गय� ह� वह प@णA� : ववधध प@णA ह� व �थय� एव, ववधध क� सम�धच� रप स� द कर प�रर� ककय� गय� ह� इसशलए उसम� ककस% भ% �रह क� हस�क�प , फ�र�फ�र य� पररव�Aन क� आवशयक�� नह#, प�� ह@W । "

¶45

In view of the discussion quoted herein above, the learned First First Appellate Courts passed the final order which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶46

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015. Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat Vs.

¶47

Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶48

Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶49

5/6

¶50

“ आद�श

¶51

13. अप%ल�थX क� ओर स� पस� � अप%ल असव%क�र क� ज�कर अध%नसथ नय�य�लय क� तनणAय व डFक� ददन�,क 28.08.2010 क� प�वY क� ज��% ह� । �च�A अप%ल पकक�र�न अपन� अपन� वहन कर�ग� । तनयम�न�स�र डFक� पच�A म@त�Aब ककय� ज�व� ।

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellantdefendant-Giriraj Kumawat and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decree of the both Courts below, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-Giriraj Kumawat. In the circumstances of the case, the findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below, that the Rs.20,000/- was given by the plaintiff – Purushottam Mali to the defendant – Giriraj Kumar and the defendant – Giriraj Kumawat had failed to pay the same in terms of the conditions settled between the parties, cannot be said to be perverse, in any manner, and do not give rise to any substantial question of law in this second appeal and this second appeal of the appellantdefendant-Giriraj Kumawat deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶53

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2015. Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat Vs.

¶54

Purushottam Mali S/o Lachiram Mali

¶55

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶56

6/6

¶57

Accordingly and in view of the discussion foregoing, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-Giriraj Kumawat S/o Gopi Lal Kumawat is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.

¶58

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶59

/Mohan/ / 7 /

Giriraj Kumawat v. Purushottam Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giriraj Kumawat v. Purushottam Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Hukma Vs Suraj Mal

Dilip Kumar Vs Mool Chand

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Raj. Th. Distt, Collector and Anr.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Kalu Ram

Nathu Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Singh

Omaram @ Om Prakash Vs Gopi Kishan