Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 974 (RAJ)

Gopi Ballabh v. Vimal Chand

2004-07-14

A.C.GOYAL

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision under section 115 CPC has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 25.9.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. The facts in brief are that Shri Jagannath plaintiff (since deceased) filed a suit for eviction against the judgment-debtor and the trial Court passed an ex-parte decree of eviction. In execution of that decree possession of the suit premises was taken on 14.10.1982 alongwith the precious stones worth about 3 lacs of the judgment-debtor lying on the premises which were handed over to the non-petitioner who is son of the plaintiff-Jagannath. 3. On 2.11.1982, the judgment-debtor filed an application for setting-aside ex-parte decree as well as one other application for delivery of the precious stones to the judgment-debtor after getting the value assessed. 4. The application for setting-aside ex-parte decree was accepted on 21.11.1983. The value of the precious stones was got assessed by the trial 15 Court. According to the report of the valuer, the weight of the precious stones was found less than given to the non-petitioner on supardginama. The trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and vide impugned order dated 25.9.1997, dismissed the application of the petitioner. 5. It was contended by learned counsel for the judgment-20 debtor-petitioner that the trial Court did not consider the evidence properly and even did not take into consideration the report of the valuer regarding the difference in weight and thus the entire goods were not returned to the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the non-petitioner appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the revision and the trial Court has considered 25 the material evidence available on the record and thus the trial Court rightly came to this conclusion that goods given on supardgi to the non-petitioner by the Nazir of the Court were returned to the petitioner as per report of the Nazir. 6. I have considered the said submissions. According to Section 115 CPC the High Court may interfere in revision where the trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 6. I have considered the said submissions. According to Section 115 CPC the High Court may interfere in revision where the trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Civil Judge considered the evidence of the parties available on the record and came to this conclusion that the precious stones were returned to the judgment-debtor in accordance with the report of the Nazir, which was prepared at the time when possession of the suit premises was handed over to the landlord and goods lying therein were given to the non-petitioner on supardgi by the Nazir. This conclusion finds support from even the statement of the judgment-debtor himself who admitted at the end of his cross-examination that it is correct that the goods available in the shop and confiscated by the Nazir, according to the list were returned to him. In view of the admission of the judgment-debtor himself whatever goods were given to the non-petitioner on supardginama" by the Courts were returned to the petitioner-judgment-debtor. Apart from this, no stock register was being maintained by the petitioner as admitted by him in his cross-examination. Therefore, no case of misreading or wrong reading or non-reading of the evidence is made out. 7. Consequently, this revision is dismissed. The record of the Court below he sent back.Revision Dismissed. *******