HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3375 OF 2008 Date:05-08-2010 Between: Balusula Kanakaiah S/o. Pedda Hanumaiah …. Petitioner AND Kampelli Rajaiah S/o. Pochaiah …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3375 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the decree and judgment dated 02-05-2007 in A.S. No.83 of 2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karimnagar reversing the decree and judgment dated 25-602007 in O.S.No.242 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in the Court below against whom suit has been filed by the respondent - plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.13,695/- on the basis of the suit document i.e. Ex.A-1. Initially, the trial Court after holding regular enquiry and by taking into account the evidence and material available on record, did not believe the version of the respondent / plaintiff and consequently, dismissed the suit. As against the same, the respondent - plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court having appreciated the evidence available on record, did not concur with the findings and the reasoning arrived at by the trial Court and allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant has filed the present revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the Ex.A-1 is pressed into service due to political rivalry and therefore, Ex.A-1 cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that the lower Appellate Court has failed to consider this aspect in a proper perspective and therefore, the judgment and decree under revision are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-1, clinchingly proves the execution as well as the receipt of the consideration thereunder and therefore, the decree and judgment of the lower Appellate Court does not require any interference by this Court. 6. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-1 and the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, I am of the opinion that much credit cannot be attached to the omnibus allegation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the absence of any rebuttal evidence. 7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the scope of this revision is very limited. In the instant case, the entire case of the petitioner revolves around the plea that Ex.A1 promissory note was pressed into service at the behest of the political rivalry. In this regard, the lower Appellate Court having taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary in a proper perspective, arrived at just and reasonable conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A-1 in his favour by the defendant. Except making an omnibus allegation, the defendant is not able to disprove the execution of Ex.A-1. 8. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, which are clear and clinching, do not require any interference by this Court. As such, this revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the lower Appellate Court. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J August 05, 2010 KTL