2025:CGHC:57878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 285 of 2015

1 - Ajit Tex Prop. P. Umendra Chandra Jain R/o Balaji Ward, Jagadalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - Smt. Pistadevi Jhavak W/o Shri Umendra Chandra Jhavak, R/o Maharani Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.............Defandant, District :

Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus

1 - Sankhla Trading Prop. Kamlesh, S/o Shri Sameermal Jain, Aged 31 Years, R/o Main Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh........Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. V.S. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Mishra, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Judgment on Board

27-11-2025

1. The present first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the defendants against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14-08-2015 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, in Civil Suit No. 4B/2014, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/-

has been decreed in his favour.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in the suit is

DMAA iOg D iHt I a LAl MK y HMsi A gEN nDed by

D14a:t4e9: :24032 +6.00523.203

being taken to refer to the respective parties in the present appeal.

3. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,60,000/- against the outstanding amount of cloth business between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is a proprietary firm run by its proprietor, Kamlesh Jain. The plaintiff firm is engaged in the wholesale and retail cloth business, and the defendants are also engaged in the cloth business at Jagdalpur. There was a frequent business relationship between them. In the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 the defendants had purchased the clothes total amounting to Rs.2,73,818/- on various dates in between 06-04-1999 to 27-01-2001, out of which the defendants had paid Rs.73,818/- in various dates in between 17- 01-2000 to 31-01-2001 and Rs. 2,00,000/- was outstanding up to 31-01-2001 and the defendants had executed a pro-note in favour of the plaintiff. After signing the pro-note the defendants had paid Rs. 19,000/- to the plaintiff on 02-02-2001 through a cheque. The plaintiff has served a legal notice to the defendants on 14-07-2001 with respect to the remaining outstanding amount and interest payable thereon, which was replied to by the defendant No.1, and he denied the pro-note and sent his reply on 20-07-2001 stating that only 59,582/- is the remaining amount. The plaintiff again sent a legal notice on 10-08-2001, which was served upon defendant No.1 on 19-08-2001, yet the outstanding amount has not been paid to the plaintiff, and then the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of his outstanding amount on 30- 01-2004 with respect to the principal amount and interest accrued thereon. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 2B/2004; however, for want of an affidavit required under Order 6 Rule 15(4) of the CPC, the said plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC vide order dated 22-10-2005. It is also pleaded in the plaint by way of amendment that the defendant No.1 is engaged in the cloth business in the premises owned by himself and his wife, Smt. Pista Devi. He alienated the said property on 10-07-2009 to Smt. Arti Dulhani and Smt. Asha Dulhani to defeat the fruits of the decree and intended to go to Rajasthan, and therefore, the property of the defendant No.1 is liable to be attached. He claimed Rs. 2,60,000/- from the defendants along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed their written statement, denied the plaintiff’s averments and pleaded that the plaintiff has not pleaded as to under which law