Gharsi Ram vs Parmanand

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Gharsi Ram who was successful in the trial court but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court has filed

the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Respondent-Plaintiff Parmanand filed suit against the Petitioner alleging that after settling accounts on 1.2.1999, an amount of Rs. 15,500/-

remained due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for which writing was thumb marked by the Defendant. The Defendant agreed to repay the same

with interest @ 1.25% per month. However, the Defendant failed to pay any amount thereafter in spite of demands including written notice.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed Rs. 15,500/- as principal amount and Rs. 6500/- as interest for pre-suit period i.e. total amount of Rs. 22,000/-.

Defendant after referring to some earlier transactions admitted that amount of Rs. 15,500/- remained due from him to the Plaintiff as on

1.2.1999. The Defendant, however, pleaded that in the year 1999, he had taken one and half acres land for cultivation from one Leela Ram and

had grown vegetables therein and the said crop of vegetables was sold to the Plaintiff who told that the loan of Rs. 15,500/- stood cleared and

nothing remained due from the Defendant. However, when Defendant received notice from the Plaintiff in December, 2001, the Defendant learnt

that the Plaintiff had cheated him. Defendant convened a Panchayat wherein Plaintiff admitted having sold vegetables of one and half acres land and

the Plaintiff agreed that he would receive balance amount from the Defendant after deducting the price of the vegetables. However, the Plaintiff did

not accept the decision of the Panchayat. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh vide judgment and decree dated 4.4.2007 dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit. However, first

appeal preferred by Plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2008 and

thereby suit filed by the Plaintiff stands decreed for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- with pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Feeling

aggrieved, the Defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as second appeal is not maintainable in

view of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit amount being less than Rs. 25,000/-.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As noticed hereinbefore, the Defendant in his written statement admitted that sum of Rs. 15,500/- remained due from him to the Plaintiff as on

1.2.1999. The Defendant, however, pleaded that he had repaid the said amount to the Plaintiff by sale of crop of vegetables. The onus to prove

the same was, therefore, heavy on the Defendant. However, the Defendant-Petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the said onus. Defendant''s

witnesses have stated about convening of Panchayat in the matter wherein it was decided that the Plaintiff would deduct the amount of vegetables

sold but the Plaintiff did not accept the decision. However, except the Defendant, there is practically no other witness to prove that vegetables of

Defendant had been sold by or to the Plaintiff. It has also not come in evidence as to how much amount towards price of vegetables was to be

adjusted by the Plaintiff out of the amount due from the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant''s version in this behalf is completely untenable.

In addition to the aforesaid when there was written document regarding the due amount from the Defendant, it does not sound probable that the

Defendant repaid the said amount by sale of vegetables without any writing. Defendant''s version is inherently improbable and unreliable.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Respondent-Plaintiff admitted that he had received Rs. 5,000/- from the Defendant on

15.5.1996 but the Plaintiff has not produced writing regarding said repayment. The contention is misconceived and irrelevant. Writing regarding

payment of Rs. 5,000/- made by Defendant to Plaintiff on 15.5.1996 has no relevance to the suit because admittedly long after said repayment of

Rs. 5,000/- accounts were settled between the parties on 1.2.1999 and sum of Rs. 15,500/- was admittedly found due from the Defendant to the

Plaintiff. Consequently, payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 15.5.1996 became irrelevant.

Learned Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner also contended that the Defendant-Petitioner is illiterate. However, illiteracy is not panacea for all

the ills nor it is an excuse to claim adjudication of an issue in favour of the party pleading illiteracy. Moreover, illiteracy of the Petitioner has no

relevance because admittedly amount of Rs. 15,500/- remained due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff on 1.2.1999. The Defendant has miserably

failed to prove repayment thereof.

Learned lower appellate court is final court of fact. Finding of fact recorded by lower appellate court is substantiated by the evidence on

record and is based on proper appreciation of evidence supported by cogent reasons. Even in second appeal finding of fact of the lower appellate

court is not open to challenge except on substantial question of law. In the revisional jurisdiction, scope for interference is limited as compared to

scope in second appeal. The impugned judgment of the lower appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to

warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.