IBRAHIM ALI Vs. HAZI ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition of the defendant who has challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 2, Cachar at Silchar passed in Money Appeal No. 18 of 1988 arising out of Money Suit No. 169 of 1974 in the Court of Munsiff, Hailakandi. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved the present petitioner the defendant in the said suit preferred an appeal in the court of Assistant District Judge, No. 2., Cachar at Silchar. The appeal was considered by the learned appellate court below and on consideration of evidence on record and the relevant documents did not find any material to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Munsiff in decreeing the plaintiff's suit and, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the defendant.

(2.) The facts are simple and there is no legal point raised in this petition. The opposite party as plaintiff brought the aforesaid Money Suit No. 169/74 in the court of Munsiff at Hailakandi for realisation of a hand-note amount with interest against the present-petitioner/defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2000.00by executing a hand-note on 16.2.74 from the plaintiff and did not repay the amount with interest even in spite of demand made by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit for realisation of the amount. The defendant took the plea that there was a litigation between the son of the plaintiff and himself for which a 'Bichar' was held. In that 'Bichar' he signed two blank papers with revenue stamps which were kept by the plaintiff. The defendant further denied that he ever borrowed Rs. 2000.00 from the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff framed as many as five issues. The parties led their evidence and exhibited the documents. The learned Munsiff considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the defence plea was not acceptable and in fact the defendant borrowed the amount as claimed in the plaint on execution of a hand-note in favour of the plaintiff. On consideration of evidence on record the learned Munsiff decreed the suit. The appellate court, while approached by the defendant, also accepted the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Munsiff.

(3.) This being a revision petition this court is not in a position to alter the concurrent findings of facts of both the courts below. It is also not possible to re-assess any evidence while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The concurrent findings of fact can be reversed by this court only when there is jurisdictional error, which is about in this case. In that view of the matter this revision petition has no substance and, accordingly, it is dismissed, However, there will be no order as to costs.