IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 634 OF 2000 Between: M/s Visweswar Finance & Chit Funds Private Limited, Hyderabad. ......petitioner AND 01. P.Sabitha Ramesh Kumar, Hyderabad. 02. D.Ramchander,Hyderabad. 03. P.Srinivas Vijay, Hyderabad. 04. P.Narayana, Hyderabad. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Viswanatha Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 seeking to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.1999 in S.C.No.1042 of 1997 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. The said small cause case was filed seeking recovery of Rs.4,402/- on the ground that the defendants being members of the chit had defaulted in payment of the aforesaid amount. The defendants appeared and produced documents, before the Small Cause Court, that they had issued two pay orders of Rs.1,000/- each, which was acknowledged by the petitioner/plaintiff and the same was admitted by PW.1 during trial. To the extent of balance amount of Rs.1,431/- also the defendant claimed that he had issued a cheque and Ex.B5 is the photostat copy of the same. The trial Court, on evidence, found that the statement of accounts filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Ex.A10 shows the payment of Rs.1,000/- each by the defendant on 07.08.1996 and 06.09.1996 and to the extent of the balance amount of Rs.1,431/-, the same is covered by Ex.B5, photostat copy of the cheque dated 05.03.1997. However, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff has not encashed the said cheque, which is at his own peril. In view of that the trial Court had granted the decree only to the extent of balance amount of Rs.1,431/- and no interest was granted, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to encash the said cheque. The said order is questioned in this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The facts of the case and the findings of the Court below, which are recorded as above clearly show that they are based on the evidence on record and primarily, the admissions of PW.1 coupled with the statement of accounts under Ex.A10 clearly establish that except for Rs.1,431/- petitioner/plaintiff was not entitled to recover any other amount. Even the said balance amount was covered by Ex.B5, cheque, but it is the plaintiff, who failed to encash the same. The trial Court, therefore, rightly found that non-realisation of the said amount even though covered by the cheque of the defendants is at the peril of the plaintiff and he is not entitled to any interest. I do not find any perversity in the judgment of the Court below and it does not call for any interference under the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J) 21st August, 2009. Ivd