Prakash Chandra vs Kallu Shah

A.M. Sapre, J.—Plaintiff has come up in revision u/s 115 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 6-8-1996, passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Ratlam, in C.A. No. 16-B of 1996, which arises out of Civil Suit No. 9-B of 1995, decided by IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Alot, District Ratlam, on 24-1-1996. Plaintiff (''petitioner'' herein) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,652/-against the respondent for recovery of unpaid price of cloth which according to plaintiff, respondent/defendant had purchased from him on several dates between 12-9-1994 to 3-11-1994. According to plaintiff he is engaged in the business of sale of cloth and he sold certain quantity of cloth to the respondent/defendant on credit and made entries in his account books. He then alleged that he sent a notice to defendant to pay unpaid price of cloth sold to respondent/defendant but since defendant did not pay and hence, suit. The defence of the defendant was essentially that of a denial of having purchased the cloth as alleged. He said that he never purchased any cloth as such from the plaintiff and whenever he sold the cloth on behalf of the plaintiff as his commission agent to somebody else, he made the payment to the plaintiff and received 10% commission. He then alleged that the cloth which he did not sell, was returned to the plaintiff. The Trial Court decreed the suit but in first appeal, the suit came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court, giving rise to filing of this civil revision by the plaintiff.

Heard Shri V.A. Katkani, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent, though served.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in this revision, and hence, it merits dismissal.

The jurisdiction to interfere in civil revision, whether u/s 115 of CPC or a revision under the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act in a case of this nature is extremely limited. This Court can not touch the facts of this case, nor it can examine the facts based on oral evidence. It can only examine the issue of law and issue relating to jurisdiction affecting the very trial of the case. It being a revision arising out of a suit of small cause nature and hence, no interference on finding of facts is called for. It was well said long back by the Full Bench of this Court in one of the leading case, reported in AIR 1943 117 (Nagpur) , wherein Their Lordships have laid down, that unless a finding is such that no judicial man can, ever reach to such conclusion on facts, no interference is called for and any finding recorded on facts by the Court below must be accepted as binding upon the High Court while deciding the revision.

In the opinion of First Appellate Court when it proceeded to dismiss the suit, it was held that there is no evidence tendered by the plaintiff which may bind the defendant with the supply and sale of the cloth. If, it was a case of the plaintiff that he sold the cloth to the defendant on credit, he should have proved it by leading adequate evidence. Reliance placed by the plaintiff on the entries in the account books, were not accepted as a good piece of evidence, because it did not bear any signature of the defendant. It was necessary for the plaintiff to have taken acknowledgment on the credit entries from the defendant, which was not done. Any entry made in the accounts without there being anything to support the entry, so far as defendant is concerned, can not be said to be binding upon the defendant. Nothing prevented the plaintiff to enter into an agreement with the defendant and take the signature of the defendant as an acknowledgment of the liability. Such would have become the admission on the part of the defendant that he has accepted the supply of the cloth on credit by the plaintiff. In the absence of any such material tendered by the plaintiff in support of his case, in my opinion, the learned First Appellate Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the suit for want of proper evidence not being led by the plaintiff. It was, thus, a case of oath against oath because, no documentary evidence was involved in the case.

I, therefore, do not find any case to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, revision fails and is dismissed.

No costs.