JUDGMENT 1. - Instant regular first appeal was filed on 27.8.2008 by the appellants under Section 96, C.P.C., in which, the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2008 passed by the District judge, Churu in Civil Suit No. 18/2005 has been challenged. 2. As per facts of the case, a suit for recovery of Rs. 63,042.04 ps was flied against the appellant-defendants in which it is stated by the plaintiff-respondent that as per instruction of the appellants his jeep No. RJ-13/C-0982 was hired by the Public Health and Engineering Department, Churu for 47 days with effect from 16.12.2001 to 31.1.2002 for which amount of hire-charges of Rs. 40,582.04 ps and, during the said period, log-book was maintained by the respondent department and bills were submitted as per rules for payment but no payment was made. Thereafter, notice through registered post was served upon the defendant-appellants but no reply was given. Therefore, a legal notice was served upon the defendants under Section 80, C.P.C. The defendant gave reply to the said notice on 18.1.2005 and it was assured that payment will be made; but, thereafter, they refused to make payment, therefore, it is prayed in the suit by the plaintiff-respondent that principal amount of Rs. 40,542.04 ps and Rs. 22,500/- on account of interest @ 18% may be decreed in his favour. 3. In the suit, after filing reply, issues were framed and respondent-plaintiff led his evidence and exhibited 14 documents in his support but no evidence was adduced by the appellant department and the suit was finally decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 4. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment and decree impugned is contrary to law and evidence on record because no documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff-respondent to show that any agreement was executed in between appellants and the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, the trial Court has committed gross illegality and judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. 5. In this appeal, following grounds are taken by the defendant-appellants : "A. That the learned Court below has gravely erred in law as well as in facts while deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and in passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.2.2008 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and the impugned judgment and decree is contrary to provisions of law and perverse to the material on record which deserves to be quashed and set aside. B. That the learned Court below did not consider this important and vital aspect of the matter that the plaintiff has failed to produce any agreement or any other documentary evidence so as to reveal that his jeep was hired so as to enable him to demand for the amount of agreement for hire of his said jeep. In view of this, the Impugned judgment and decree Is" bad in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. C. That the learned Court below has erred in deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant department. D. That the learned Court below has erroneously ordered for interest @ 9% per annum which is too high looking to the present rate of interest. E. That the other grounds will be submitted at the time of arguments." 6. After perusing the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, I have perused the record of the case also. 7. In my opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground that in the memo of appeal, the grounds taken by the appellants for assailing the impugned judgment and decree are contrary to the record of the trial Court because in their reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff-respondent the defendants accepted that after preparation of the bills the bills have been sent to the office of Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D. and payment will be made expeditiously. However, before this Court a contrary plea is taken by the defendants without there being any evidence on the record. Therefore, the grounds taken in the appeal are totally unsustainable in law and absurd. 8. However, before this Court a contrary plea is taken by the defendants without there being any evidence on the record. Therefore, the grounds taken in the appeal are totally unsustainable in law and absurd. 8. It emerges that the trial Court after taking into consideration entire evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff in his favour and this appeal has been filed by the appellants on the grounds which are totally contrary to the record. Therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the judgment and decree impugned because all the facts are admitted before the trial Court and no evidence was adduced by the defendant-appellants to refute the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal. 9. This regular first appeal is accordingly dismissed.First appeal dismissed. *******