ARUNCHANDRA RATILAL BISCUITWALA Vs. KANTILAL RATILAL BISCUITWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No.64 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2016 confirming the judgment and decreed in Regular Civil Suit No.39/1985 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Valsad dated 21.09.2007 posing the substantial questions of law and also on the grounds stated as mentioned in the memo of appeal in the memo of appeal-

(2.) Heard learned advocate, Shri R.C. Jani for the appellant.

(3.) Learned advocate, Shri Jani has referred to the R&P as well as paper book, which has been produced and has tried to submit that both the Courts below have misdirected in appreciating the evidence. He pointedly referred to the background of the facts regarding the dissolution of the firm and submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that even the return of the Income Tax filed after the so-called dissolution and, therefore, it has not been appreciated properly. Learned advocate, Shri Jani submitted that one sided documents, which have been produced recording the so-called compromise or the understanding between the parties regarding the arrangement, have been believed or accepted but the stand of the appellant has not been considered. He, therefore, submitted that the present Appeal may be entertained.