Prakash Trading Co. v. Kanmal Jain And ORS.

'

, IN'

TIE HH IG GOURT QF P v'

JUDI, ATHR$ AT ¢ éJAggLUR m second Appeal Noyés O£ (Memrandam of Seond Aeal U/section 100 of C) o c pp CF '

'

ipmm'rnn APPELLANI "Partner ?rakash Kamal Tradmg Kishore Company,through Rathi, s/o sita Ram Rathl.

resident of Kat; KnJ .GanJpara Durg.Distt Dug (m).

h u V us ers w p §Rzsemaems ,Wmmms 1w Kan Mal Jain s/o not knon Proprietor Parakh Traders Rajnandgaon District ' Rajnandgaon _ Manak La]. Gena 'r/o r the state P (WRANDUM OFigSECONDAPPEAL UmER SEQTIDN

160) CPCV

@@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S ingle Bench:

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Second Appeal No. 905 of 2000 Plaintiff Appellant Prakash Trading Company

VERSUS

Respondents Kan Mal Jain and others Defendants

Present:

Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant.

Oral Order (01 .10.201 3) The instant second appeal has been preferred by 'the appellant/plaintiff herein challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2000 passed by the District Judge, Durg in First Appeal No.45-A/1999 whereby the lower appellate court i.e. the District Judge, Durg had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Class-I in Civil Suit No.21-Al1993.

The appellant plaintiff had tiled a suit for recovery of Rs.11,300lagainst the respondents/defendants on purchase of 120 bags of Tiwra Dal from the appellant, which according to the appellant/plaintiff was not paid for. 3.

After du'e consideration of the facts of the case wherein the respondents/defendants have entered into agreement and proceeded exparte, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.7.93 has dismissed the said suit and drawn a decree accordingly. 4.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant had preferred a first appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 27.4.2000 rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant. The appellant in the instant second appeal has assailed the said order.

5.

After.

considering the submissions made by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, after perusal of judgment of the trial Court and also after appreciating the evidence that has come on record, l find no substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

a Sd-