Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1716 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar v. M/s Asthetics

2015-09-28

J.K.RANKA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners assailing the judgment and decree dated 19/03/2015 passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the Civil Regular Appeal No.109/2007 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/08/2007 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 86/2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,453/- against the defendants-petitioners before the trial court. The trial court, after filing written statement by the defendants-petitioners and after framing issues as well as recording evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 18/08/2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants-petitioners preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which too came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree impugned herein dated 19/03/2015. Hence instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendants-petitioners. 3. Counsel for the defendants-petitioners contended that it was duty of the plaintiff-respondent to take care of the material and other things as the period initially was upto 31st March, 1999 and thereafter it was extended to 30/06/1999 and it is a finding of fact that the doors, windows and other material came to be stolen during the intervening period and therefore, it was duty of the plaintiff-respondent to take care of the same and to safeguard the interest of the houses and quarters which were being constructed by putting appropriate security guards and other persons. He contended that the respondent acted in negligent manner and thus for his fault, why the appellant should suffer. He further contended that both i.e. the trial court and lower appellate court have not taken into consideration these and other vital facts in the right perspective and the issue requires consideration. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants-petitioners and in my view, the instant revision petition has no force for the reasons henceforth. 5. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court, both have come to a definite finding of fact in arriving at a finding that an amount of Rs. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants-petitioners and in my view, the instant revision petition has no force for the reasons henceforth. 5. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court, both have come to a definite finding of fact in arriving at a finding that an amount of Rs. 19,562/- with interest deserves to be recovered from the defendants-petitioners though the claim of the plaintiff-respondent was higher and the finding arrived at by both the courts below, being a concurrent finding of fact and both the courts below have gone into the issue appropriately and also noticed various discrepancies on the part of the defendants-petitioners and accordingly allowed the claim to a certain extent only and not the entire claim put forth, as stated herein above and I do not find any apparent error or perversity in the same so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. Consequently, the instant Revision Petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******