MADHORAO Vs. GOVIND RAGHOBA TOTADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present revision application an objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff-non-applicant (Govind Raghoba Totade) that no revision application could lie. It was urged in this connexion that the suit was of a Small Cause Court nature for an amount under Rs. 500, and that under Section 102, Civil P. C, no second appeal lay. Over and beyond this, it was urged that none of the conditions laid down in Section 115, Civil P.C. were fulfilled in the present case.

(2.) ONE of the main contentions urged on behalf of the applicants was that the decision of the learned Dist. Judge on the question of limitation was wrong and that limitation should, at the best, for the plaintiff, have been held to run from 1916, when he stood surety, or from 1917, when the payment of Rs. 100 was made to Bansilal.

(3.) THE other grounds urged in the petition of revision would afford even less ground for interference and, none of them, in my opinion, amount to a wrong exercise of jurisdiction, a failure to exercise proper jurisdiction or to illegal or materially irregular action on the part of the lower Courts. The main question involved is whether the plaintiff substituted himself for the defendants as the debtor of Bansilal Abirchand or was a mere surety. This was a pure finding of fact on which the lower appellate Court was perfectly entitled to come to the decision it has. It has been suggested in this connexion that the Dist. Judge misread and misunderstood the letter (D. 2), but I am unable to accept this contention. It would doubtless have been well if the books of Bansilal Abirchand had been called for, but for the failure to do this, the present applicants seem peculiarly responsible. When it was discovered that Nandkishore (P. W. 2) was no longer in the service of Bansilal Abirchand, the Court should have been moved to arrange for the production of the books of the firm in question. Not only so, but the absence of these books and the necessity of having them produced were not even made a ground of appeal in the lower appellate Court. I have merely mentioned these matters in order to make it clear that the present application for revision on the merits had little or no chance of success, but I find it unnecessary to enter into the contentions of the applicants in further detail, for the simple reason that, in my opinion, on any of the contentions put forward, the present application does not lie under Section 115, Civil P.C.