R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 26 -5 -2010, passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer, Camp Kishangarh whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 66,990/ - in favour of the plaintiff -respondent, the defendant -appellant has challenged the same before this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Krishan Gopal Verma, the plaintiff -respondent, instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 66,990/ -against Nirmal Kodwani, the appellant, on the ground that the defendant had engaged services of plaintiff for videography and photography of the marriage of defendant's daughter, Pooja, which was solemnised in Delhi on 6 -12 -2005. According to the plaintiff he had raised two different bills, namely first one for Rs. 10,660/ -, and second one for Rs. 48,285/ -. Initially the defendant promised to pay the bills, but subsequently, he failed to do so. Therefore, on 25 -6 -2007, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant. Since the defendant still did no pay the bills, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the due amount. The defendants -appellants filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed five issues, including the issue with regard to relief. In order to buttress his case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses, including himself, and exhibited twenty -five documents; the defendant examined two witnesses, including himself, and exhibited a single document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 26 -5 -2010, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. Hence, the present first appeal before this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri, has vehemently contended that the the appellant happens to be a resident of Dubai, and his daughter's marriage was performed at Delhi. Thus, there is no reason why the appellant would have hired the services of the plaintiff at Kishangarh. Secondly, the plaintiff has fabricated a false case against the appellant, and has falsely pleaded that the appellant owes money for the alleged videography and photography. Thirdly, the learned Judge has overlooked these glaring facts. Fourthly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for believing the evidence produced by the plaintiff. Thus, the impugned judgment is a non -speaking one.;