Writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of a revision petition in a debt recovery suit. The High Court found the impugned judgment supported by evidence and not perverse, thus dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed being devoid of merit; pending applications disposed of accordingly.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:18563]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10022/2012
Pappu @ Pyare Lal Son Of Mishrya R/o, Udai Kalan Tehsil Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner/Non-Applicant
Versus
……...Respondent/Applicant
---Proforma-Respondent/Non-Applicant
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Ritesh Kumawat for |
|---|---|
| Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma for |
| Mr. Prahlad Sharma |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
22/04/2024
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, “the learned Revisional Court”) whereby, while dismissing the Revision Petition no.14/2007 filed by the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 (for brevity, “the nonapplicant no.1”) and the proforma-respondent no.4/non-applicant no.2 (for brevity, “the non-applicant no.2”), the judgment and
[2024:RJ-JP:18563]
[CW-10022/2012]
(2 of 3)
decree dated 08.10.2007 passed by the learned Agriculture Debts Relief Court, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapur City (for brevity, “the learned Debts Relief Court”) partly allowing the Debts Relief Application no.7/2003 filed by the respondent no.3/applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”), have been affirmed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application as aforesaid against the non-applicants no.1 and 2 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.4,92,025/-. It was stated in the application that they have borrowed from him different amount(s) at different points of time for household expenses which was not returned despite notice. Therefore, recovery of the aforesaid amount; representing the principle as also the interest, was prayed for. The non-applicants in their joint reply denied the averments made in the application.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Debts Relief Court framed six issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the application filed by the applicant came to be partly allowed by the learned Debts Relief Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.2007 whereby, he was held entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.1,05,627/- in six monthly installments along with interest @6% per annum for default installment. The revision petition preferred thereagainst by the non-applicants no.1 and 2 came to be dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide judgment dated 24.02.2012.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1 submits that findings of the learned Courts are against the evidence on record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 24.02.2012 be quashed
[2024:RJ-JP:18563]
[CW-10022/2012]
(3 of 3)
and set aside and the application filed by applicant for recovery be dismissed in its entirety.
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard. Considered.
While allowing the application filed by the applicant, the learned Debts Relief Court has held that the non-applicants have admitted in their evidence that they have received a sum of Rs.93,800/- from the applicant which was due against them. Levying interest @6% per annum on the aforesaid amount, the applicant was held entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,05,627/-. These findings have been upheld by the learned Revisional Court reappreciating the evidence on record.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant no.1 has neither placed material on record to show that the aforesaid findings are perverse nor, he has been able to satisfy this Court that the concurrent findings of facts suffer from any manifest error of law/facts so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/100
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 to quash the concurrent findings of fact against evidence by the lower civil courts regarding a debt recovery application.
Whether the prevailing judgment upholding the lower court decree in a debt recovery suit should be quashed by the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pappu @ Pyare Lal Son Of Mishrya
The District Judge Sawai Madhopur
The Court Agriculture Loan Dispersement Judge And Civil Judge S.D., Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur
Sukh Chand Son Of Mool Chand
Mishriya Son Of Kanchan
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
