the trial Court dismissed the suit treating Ex.A1 – delivery challan-cum-proforma invoice and Ex.A2 – Invoice No.27 as concocted ones and observing that since the defendant was a stranger, the burden was more on the plaintiff to prove the same, however the plaintiff failed to prove his case.


S.A. No. 118 of 2012

DATED: 19.04.2012

Rajender Kumar Gupta                                                                    .. Appellant


F1 Fashion Corner                                                                   ..    Respondent


            This  Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011 delivered in A.S. No. 54 of 2008 by IX Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil CourtHyderabad.
            The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 6139 of 2005 on the file of the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking to recover an amount of Rs.31,620/- with interest and costs from the defendant.  The plaintiff pleaded that he was dealing in ready-made garments, so also the defendant. The defendant had purchased shirts from him under delivery challan and invoice Nos.6 and 27 on 07.02.2005 worth Rs.34,008/-. Payment was to be made within 30 days from the date of invoice lest an interest at the rate of 18% p.a. would be chargeable.     The defendant failed to pay the invoice amount in spite of repeated requests.  After paying a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- in the month of June, 2005, the defendant denied the transaction and also the other material averments in the plaint.  Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court has framed necessary issues.  Both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence, considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit treating Ex.A1 – delivery challan-cum-proforma invoice and Ex.A2 – Invoice No.27 as concocted ones and observing that since the defendant was a stranger, the burden was more on the plaintiff to prove the same, however the plaintiff failed to prove his case.   Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed an appeal suit in A.S. No. 58 of 2008 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.),City Civil CourtHyderabad.  The lower appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and decree as well as other material on record, came to the same conclusion as that of the trial Court and thereby concurred therewith and dismissed the appeal.  Challenging the judgment dated 30.05.2011 of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has inter alia raised the self-same contentions as he had raised before both the Courts below.  His main contention is that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and material on record in proper perspective, and thereby, came to an erroneous conclusion in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal suit.  Hence, he prays to set aside the judgment under appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree and other material on record, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below do no appear to have committed any error or irregularity in dismissing the suit as well the appeal suit, as such, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.  Therefore, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment under appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.  There shall be no order as to costs.




Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.