HARILAL Vs. ISMAILSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a, plaintiff's revision petition arising out of the order dated 9th April, 1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hubli, in S.C. Suit No 170 ol 1974.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff is a wholesale dealer in bangles carrying on business at Hubli and according to him, maintaining accounts regularly. It is alleged by him that the respondent herein who was the defendant in the Small Cause suit is carrying on business at Dharwar as a retail bangle merchant and on, that account, had opened, khata with the petitioner who as earlier stated is a whole-sale merchant in bangles. The petitioner claimed in the said Small Cause Suit a sum of Rs. 526-81P as khata balance. H elso claimed interest at 18% on the said amount as per trade usage and also according to the provision of the Sale of Goods Act. It was the case of the petitioner in the court below that in spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay ther amount and therefore the suit had to be filed,. Resisting the suit clam, the defendant denied that he had, any transaction with the petitioner plaintiff. He further averred in his written statement that he never purchased bangles from the petitioner-plaintiff. He denied his liability towards the claim. On the above pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed the following five issues: 1. Whether Plff. proves that deft.opened Khata in his shop purchased bangles on credit. 2. Whether plff. proves that the deft, is due in a sum of Rs. 529-81 3 Whether the plff. is entitled to interest claimed. 4 Whether the suit is in time? 5 What order or decree? On all the above issues, the learned Civil Judge found against the plaintiff on appreciating the evidence placed before him by the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant. In the result, the learned Civii Judge dismissed the suit having regard to his finding on issue No. 1.

(3.) In this revision petition, the grounds urged by the revision petitioner do not call for interference under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, except that assertion that the Court below has erred in law, no specific ground is made out for this court to hold that the, judgment and decree of the Court below is n,ot in accordance with law. It is onh fair that Mr. K. S. Savanur learned counsc did no really argue the case on facts. He has howe ver placed strong reliance on I.A.No. 1 which is filed along with the revision petition. I.A. No. 1 is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure The prayer portion is as follows:-