Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1759 (RAJ)

Babulal Sharma v. Mukesh Sharma

2017-08-08

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 19.4.17 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur District, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.14 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) in Civil Suit No.519/11 (57/07), stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- paid by him to the petitioner defendant towards the consideration of sale of a property under an agreement dated 18.12.16. The suit preferred was decreed by the Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur District, Jodhpur vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.14. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Court stands dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. 3. Since the original suit was for recovery of only Rs. 22,000/- on account of bar contained under section 102 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition questioning the legality of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the suit for recovery preferred was not maintainable inasmuch as, the plaintiff had not sought the relief for specific performance of the contract. That apart, it is contended that the agreement to sell executed between the parties being not sufficiently stamped, was not admissible in evidence. 5. It is to be noticed that the questions sought to be raised by the petitioner were not raised before the trial court or the first appellate court and therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this court at this stage. 6. In the considered opinion of this court, the decree passed by the Appellate Court, affirming the decree passed by the trial court based on concurrent findings of facts, does not suffer from a jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.