IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 116 of 2014 M/S K.L.KOCHAR AND COMPANY Versus M/S NITISH TILES Appearance:

Mr. Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Ajmer Singh Yadav - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the th judgment and decree dated 25/06/2014 passed by 10 Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Regular Civil Appeal No. 25-A/2013 arising out of th judgment and decree dated 31/01/2014 passed by 6 Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 1-B/2012.

2. Since the valuation of appeal is less than Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, in view of Section 102 of CPC, second appeal is not maintainable, and thus, present civil revision has been filed.

3. Applicant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff is a contractor by profession and he was in need of tiles and cement for carrying out his contractual work on Jhansi Road, Gwalior. Accordingly, he entered into an agreement to purchase 1700 tiles of 10×10 inch at the cost of Rs. 7.50/- per tile and defendant was directed to deliver 1700 tiles on the site. An amount of Rs. 12,000/- was also given by plaintiff to defendant in cash and acknowledgement of the same was given by defendant on a plain paper. Although plaintiff had requested the defendant to deliver the tiles, but defendant did not deliver the tiles, and accordingly, plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 24/01/2011 to defendant for refund of Rs. 12,000/- with interest. However, said amount has not been returned back by defendant.

Accordingly, suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 12,000 with 12% interest.

5. Defendant filed his written statement and claimed that on

19/10/2010, plaintiff had purchased 1600 tiles at the rate of Rs. 8/- per tile. Said tiles were delivered. Total cost of the tiles was Rs. 12,800/-, and after including the packing charges as well as transportation charges to the tune of Rs. 600/- and 13% VAT, total amount of Rs. 15,142/- was outstanding towards the plaintiff. Plaintiff is not intending to repay the said amount. Plaintiff had neither paid Rs. 12,000/- to defendant, nor defendant had given any written acknowledgement. On the contrary, 1600 tiles were delivered by defendant to the plaintiff on 19/10/2010 through vehicle number MP06-B- 1155. However, amount of Rs. 15,142/- has not been repaid by plaintiff. Defendant has sent a notice dated 08/2/2011, in spite of that amount has not been paid.

6. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit by holding that plaintiff has failed to prove that he had placed any order for supply of 1700 tiles worth Rs. 12,000/-. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that defendant had failed to deliver the tiles. Trial Court has also held that plaintiff has failed to prove that plaintiff had ever paid advance money of Rs. 12,000/- and that defendant has not refunded the same in spite of demand.

7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, applicant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the Appellate Court.

8. It is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that this Court, in exercise of power under Section 115 of CPC, can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only when the same are found to be perverse and dehors the record. Even an erroneous concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 100 or 115 of CPC. The Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna Vs. Shankar and Others decided on 22/04/2025 in Civil Appeal No.5401/2025 {Arising out of SLP (C) No.6799 of 2022}, has held as under:-

"12. Before delving into the facts of the case, this court in Jaichand (supra) expressed its anguish at the High Court for not understanding the scope of Section 100 CPC, which limits intervention only to cases where a substantial questi