SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(MP) 109

S.M.N.RAINA
GULLA KHARAGJIT CARPENTER – Appellant
Versus
NARSINGH NANDKISHORE RAWAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.S.Sharma, J.C.Katiar

S. M. N. RAINA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. _

( 2 ) THE petitioner Gulla (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') filed a suit against the non-applicant Harisingh for recovery of a sum of Rs. 170 on account of the price of a bullock-cart supplied to him on 3-3-65. The non-applicant (defendant) denied the transaction and the trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit on the ground that the case of the plaintiff-applicant was not proved. Being aggrieved by this decision of the trial Court the plaintiff-applicant has filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) IN this case plaintiff Gulla (P. W. 1) testified that the non-applicant had purchased a bullock-cart from him on credit for Rs. 170 agreeing to pay the price a couple of months later, but he failed to do so in spite of demands. He is corroborated on this point by two witnesses namely, Chhidi (PW2) and Ratanlal (PW3 ). The trial Court found fault with this evidence on the ground of certain minor 'discrepancies and also because there was no documentary evidence in support of the transaction. The Court, however,, failed to take notice of the very mater










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top